[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-API] Bug (and fix?) for scripts/setup-vif-rules

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?
Xen-api mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.