On 04.05.2013 16:36, Dave Scott wrote:
Hi George,
About an updated xapi.rpm -- that's an interesting idea.
Mike: what do you think?
My personal opinion is that we would benefit from converging
XCP and XenServer more, so that updates to XenServer contain
useful updates to XCP too. I think the main thing to do is to
split the packages into two repositories: one containing XCP (ie
the majority of the packages) and a second non-free repo which
contains one or two binaries (things like 3rd party storage
array control tools) which would be in XenServer but not
installed by default on XCP (although it would probably be
possible to install them anyway,a bit like the situation with
non-free graphics drivers on Ubuntu)
What do you think?
Em... I'm sorry, but what binaries in XCP are non-free? I thought
StorageLink is proprientary and was not planned to be distributes
with XCP. My main concern is:
1) Hypervisor. There was few CVE's recently for xen, so new updates
are welcome (actaully, right now for the product we unpacking
XenServer fixes, but this is lame)
2) Kernel. Same stuff.
3) tapdisk/vhdutil, etc. We was really hurt after hitting VHD
corruption bug in XCP 1.1 about half year after fix in Xenserver
(but not XCP) - about that time we starts to snatch XenServer's one.
4) Main problem and main update we can't simply unpack from
XenServer - xapi binaries.
As far as I understand there is different builds for xapi in XCP and
xapi for XenServer. Difference is within licensing and HA
functionality (which is XenServer only). Or I'm wrong and binaries
are compatible?
Â
|
