Hello,
2009/9/30 Anthony Liguori :
> Hi,
>
> Now that 0.11.0 is behind us, it's time to start thinking about 0.12.0.
> o storage live migration
Sorry for a bit off topic. But, my special NBD server can do this
independently of VMM implementations.
See http://bitbucket.org/hirofuchi/xnbd/wiki/Ho
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 05:53:56PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> I would be much more inclined to consider
> taking raw and improving the performance long term if guest<->host
> networking worked. This appears to be a fundamental limitation though
> and I think it's something that will for
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 02:10:00PM -0700, Sridhar Samudrala wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 17:50 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 04:19:17PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > > Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 09:17:15AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 17:53 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> So at this point, I think it's a mistake to include raw socket support.
> If the goal is to improve networking usability such that it just works
> as a root user, let's incorporate a default network script that creates
> a bridge or s
Sridhar Samudrala wrote:
Can't we bind the raw socket to the tap interface instead of the
physical interface and allow the bridge config to work.
But why use the raw interface instead of tap directly.
Let me summarize the discussion so far:
Raw sockets
Pros:
o User specifies a network inte
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 17:50 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 04:19:17PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 09:17:15AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > > > Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > >> Looks like Or has abandoned it
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 04:19:17PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 09:17:15AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > > Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > >> Looks like Or has abandoned it. I have an updated version which works
> > >> with new APIs, etc. Le
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 09:17:15AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >> Looks like Or has abandoned it. I have an updated version which works
> >> with new APIs, etc. Let me post it and we'll go from there.
> >>
> >>
> >>> I'm generally i
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 09:17:15AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> Looks like Or has abandoned it. I have an updated version which works
>> with new APIs, etc. Let me post it and we'll go from there.
>>
>>
>>> I'm generally inclined to oppose the functionality as I
Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Looks like Or has abandoned it. I have an updated version which works
with new APIs, etc. Let me post it and we'll go from there.
I'm generally inclined to oppose the functionality as I don't think it
offers any advantages over the existing backends.
I pat
On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 09:21:04AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Jens Osterkamp wrote:
>> On Wednesday 30 September 2009, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>>
>>> o VMState conversion -- I expect most of the pc target to be completed
>>> o qdev conversion -- I hope that we'll get most of the pc targ
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Luiz Capitulino wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:54:53 -0500
>> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I think aiming for early to mid-December would give us roughly a 3
>>> month cycle and would align well with some of the Linux
>>> distribution cycles. I'd like to limit t
On (Wed) Sep 30 2009 [09:47:22], Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Amit Shah wrote:
>> On (Wed) Sep 30 2009 [08:04:17], Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>>> Amit Shah wrote:
>>>
On (Tue) Sep 29 2009 [18:54:53], Anthony Liguori wrote:
o multiport virtio-console support
>>> Assumi
Amit Shah wrote:
On (Wed) Sep 30 2009 [08:04:17], Anthony Liguori wrote:
Amit Shah wrote:
On (Tue) Sep 29 2009 [18:54:53], Anthony Liguori wrote:
o multiport virtio-console support
Assuming we can get the kernel drivers straightened out, I think it's
certainly reasonable
On (Wed) Sep 30 2009 [08:04:17], Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Amit Shah wrote:
>> On (Tue) Sep 29 2009 [18:54:53], Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> o multiport virtio-console support
>>
>
> Assuming we can get the kernel drivers straightened out, I think it's
> certainly reasonable for 0.12.
The ker
Amit Shah wrote:
On (Tue) Sep 29 2009 [18:54:53], Anthony Liguori wrote:
o multiport virtio-console support
Assuming we can get the kernel drivers straightened out, I think it's
certainly reasonable for 0.12.
--
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the li
On (Tue) Sep 29 2009 [18:54:53], Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Now that 0.11.0 is behind us, it's time to start thinking about 0.12.0.
>
> I'd like to do a few things different this time around. I don't think
> the -rc process went very well as I don't think we got more testing out
> of it.
Dustin Kirkland wrote:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Now that 0.11.0 is behind us, it's time to start thinking about 0.12.0.
I'd like to do a few things different this time around. I don't think the
-rc process went very well as I don't think we got more testing o
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Now that 0.11.0 is behind us, it's time to start thinking about 0.12.0.
>
> I'd like to do a few things different this time around. I don't think the
> -rc process went very well as I don't think we got more testing out of it.
> I'd like
19 matches
Mail list logo
