On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 08:15 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Alex Muntada (al...@alexm.org): > > + Serge E. Hallyn <serge.hal...@canonical.com> wrote: > > > > > From what I see online it definately seems to make a huge difference. > > > For Lucid and Maverick I think the best we can do at this point is to > > > tell the user about it. For Natty, well the best option is to have you > > > work with upstream to change the default there. Sounds like you've got > > > a posse forming to back you up :) > > > > Just want to point out that there's a bug about this on LP: > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/virt-manager/+bug/568445 > > Hm, I see, and Anthony's comment #6 makes a lot of sense to me. > Like he says, I only use virt-manager for casual use. For real > tests, well I tend to use kvm cmdline, but on remote servers > lately I use libvirt directly so that I can do things like create > base.xml, then > for i in `seq 1 20`; do > cp base.xml vm$i.xml > sed -i 'whatever' vm$i.xml > virsh define vm$i.xml > done > > So I guess before we consider carrying a patch just in ubuntu, > we should answer the question - do we expect users who are trying > out kvm just once to use virt-manager or testdrive?
Anthony's observation about virt-manager may be valid, but I sure know a lot of people who use it every day as a part of their daily workflow (me not included -- I use virsh/libvirt exclusively (surprise)). I like Serge's idea of testing and if there is a positive improvement, make the change in libvirt itself so all consumers (like eucalyptus, openstack, straight virsh users, etc) can benefit. If that doesn't fit virt-manager use cases, update it to use a different sensible default. -- Jamie Strandboge | http://www.canonical.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
