|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-users] Announcing XenMaster
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Grant McWilliams <grantmasterflash@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > It totally makes sense >> > for tools that aim to manage multiple types of hypervisors or multiple >> > types of storage. >> > For a XCP frontend it makes not much sense to base it libvirt since >> > the direct XAPI access is more suited to manage SRs and other >> > specialties and XCP does already abstract all of those. >> >> Agreed. There are a lot of features that a generic tool like libvirt >> simply doesn't support (as it is a common abstraction layer) and not >> purpose-built for Xen like XAPI and libxl are. >> >> Here is a summary of the choice of toolstacks: >> >> http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Choice_of_Toolstacks > > It looks like Todd that in the future XAPI and libvirt will both be using > libxl underneath? libvirt already has a libxl port. XAPI's libxl port is still in progress. > I would also assume that this won't change how XAPI works > for a user/administrator but rather how it communicates with the Hypervisor? Right, the point of libxl is doing the "bottom third" of any Xen-based toolstack and doing it well. XAPI, libvirt, or any other toolstack can then innovate on top of that. Porting XAPI to a libxl base will likely just make it faster, more maintainable, and compatible with libxl-based development. The admin or developer API will not be affected by the libxl port. Thanks, Todd -- Todd Deshane http://www.linkedin.com/in/deshantm http://blog.xen.org/ http://wiki.xen.org/ _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
 |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |