RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/3] domUloader

["Edwards, Nigel \(Nigel Edwards\)" <nigel.edwards@xxxxxx>]

> 
> I would really handle iSCSI in dom0 and export sdX/hdX to domU.
> Solves the nasty OOM problem as well and makes your domains know
> less about the underlaying storage. Which is good in my vision
> of virtualization.
> 
There are good arguments for isolating storage management in Dom0.
However, I have been looking at migration of domains with iSCSI
and have found it a pain to fix up so that the iSCSI disk
appears on the same /dev/sdx point in both source and destination
Dom0s.

That is why I have started looking at direct iSCSI attachment in DomU
via initrd. Then storage is fixed up automatically via migration of
network connections. The disadvantage of this, as Kurt points out,
is that it exposes your iSCSI infrastructure into DomU.

Cheers,
Nigel.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Kurt Garloff
> Sent: 23 January 2006 14:20
> To: Philip R. Auld
> Cc: Xen development list; Jeremy Katz
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/3] domUloader
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 06:08:26PM -0500, Philip R. Auld wrote:
> > Of course, that would mean support for root on iSCSI in the 
> installer
> > and mkinitrd code.
> 
> I would really handle iSCSI in dom0 and export sdX/hdX to domU.
> Solves the nasty OOM problem as well and makes your domains know
> less about the underlaying storage. Which is good in my vision
> of virtualization.
> 
> Best,
> -- 
> Kurt Garloff, Head Architect, Director SUSE Labs (act.), Novell Inc.
> 

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel