On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 16:21 -0500, Lon Hohberger wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 11:23 -0800, David Lutterkort wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 12:29 -0500, James Parsons wrote:
> > > Lon Hohberger wrote:
> > > >http://sourceware.org/cluster/conga/
> >
&
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 11:23 -0800, David Lutterkort wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 12:29 -0500, James Parsons wrote:
> > Lon Hohberger wrote:
> > >http://sourceware.org/cluster/conga/
>
> It seems that that should be http://www.sourceware.org/cluster/conga/ -
> I get
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 17:53 +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> Hence our initial goal is to find a suitable C library we can call into
> to perform our simple set of storage management tasks. Now in keeping
> with the libvirt model of pluggable hypervisor drivers, I'd expect the
> underlying li
On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 16:18 -0500, Hugh Brock wrote:
> Todos:
>Investigate gparted, one of the partition management tools we already
> have (apis? remote accessibility?) (I believe Jim Meyering volunteered
* Investigate Conga's cluster and non-cluster remotely-accessible LVM
management, whi
On Fri, 2006-11-03 at 11:36 -0500, Lon Hohberger wrote:
> > So yes, why not, you want to work on it ? Or should I (or any candidate).
>
> Give me a few; I'll check on this. I don't have problems trying it, but
> I will have a learning curve of course.
>
Right n
On Fri, 2006-11-03 at 10:53 -0500, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> Okay I can see how this would be useful, the questions I would have would
> be:
> - how generic is this, i.e. suppose a different hypervisor back-end
> would this still make sense. I guess yes, for example with an UML
>
There's already one for saving live domains:
int virDomainSave(virDomainPtr domain, const char *to);
Why not use a similar API for a function which does the equivalent of
'xm dump' ?
int virDomainDump(virDomainPtr domain, const char *to, int flags);
Create a kernel dump of the domain in the pat
On Wed, 2006-09-27 at 14:26 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > So is there any better way to block on destroy here ? In the clustering
> > scenario its neccessary to 'fence' a misbehaving domain on a host before
> > bringing it back online. From what you're saying it would appear to be
> > neccessa
On Tue, 2006-09-26 at 18:07 -0400, Lon Hohberger wrote:
> This makes it look like that the destroy request is not synchronous,
> and/or the result of the operation is not guaranteed (only that the
> request was made). Is it supposed to work this way, or is this a
> bug/problem?
Nope
On Tue, 2006-09-26 at 18:07 -0400, Lon Hohberger wrote:
xend.log
-- Lon
[2006-09-26 14:28:11 xend.XendDomainInfo 3474] DEBUG (XendDomainInfo:188) XendDomainInfo.create(['vm', ['name', 'futon1'], ['memory', '384'], ['maxmem'
i686
libvirt-0.1.5-3
xen-3.0.2-33
Code:
domain_desc = virDomainGetXMLDesc(vdp, 0);
response = virDomainDestroy(vdp);
if (response == 0 && domain_desc) {
/* sleep(3); */
virDomainCreateLinux(vp, domain_desc, 0);
free(domain_d
Hi,
For fencing Xen domains, I would like the ability to guarantee an
immediate reboot of a domain without notifying the OS inside.
Basically, I would like something equivalent to pressing the reset
button on a physical machine.
There's a currently unused "flags" option to virDomainReboot which w
12 matches
Mail list logo
