Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   Fedora/Linux Management Tools (http://www.linux-archive.org/fedora-linux-management-tools/)
-   -   HVM installs are broken? (http://www.linux-archive.org/fedora-linux-management-tools/204767-hvm-installs-broken.html)

"Daniel P. Berrange" 12-03-2008 08:49 AM

HVM installs are broken?
 
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 02:23:45AM +0000, John Levon wrote:
>
> Current tip, Fedora 8:
>
> virt-install -d -n domu-225 -r 1024 --hvm --vnc -f
> /export/guests/2008.11/root.img --os-type=windows -l
> /net/heaped/export/netimage/windows/xp.iso
>
> Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:36:58 DEBUG Using libvirt URI connect 'xen'
> Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:36:58 DEBUG Requesting virt method 'hvm'
> Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:36:58 DEBUG Received virt method 'hvm'
> ...
> Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:36:58 DEBUG Attempting to detect distro:
> ...
> Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:36:58 DEBUG Cleaning up mount at
> /var/lib/xen/virtinstmnt.REF5Hf
> Could not find an installable distribution at '/net/heaped/export/netimage/windows/xp.iso'
>
> Looks like it's no longer skipping the PV install detection for HVM
> guests. Am I missing something?

The -l / --location PATH|URL arg will do a kernel+initrd based install
for either HVM or Paravirt - latest Xen support kernel+initrd boot
of Linux HVM guests, as does KVM.

For plain BIOS based boot, just use --cdrom PATH|URL

Regards,
Daniel
--
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|

_______________________________________________
et-mgmt-tools mailing list
et-mgmt-tools@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/et-mgmt-tools

John Levon 12-03-2008 03:37 PM

HVM installs are broken?
 
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 09:49:50AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:

> > virt-install -d -n domu-225 -r 1024 --hvm --vnc -f
> > /export/guests/2008.11/root.img --os-type=windows -l
> > /net/heaped/export/netimage/windows/xp.iso
> >
> > Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:36:58 DEBUG Using libvirt URI connect 'xen'
> > Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:36:58 DEBUG Requesting virt method 'hvm'
> > Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:36:58 DEBUG Received virt method 'hvm'
> > ...
> > Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:36:58 DEBUG Attempting to detect distro:
> > ...
> > Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:36:58 DEBUG Cleaning up mount at
> > /var/lib/xen/virtinstmnt.REF5Hf
> > Could not find an installable distribution at '/net/heaped/export/netimage/windows/xp.iso'
> >
> > Looks like it's no longer skipping the PV install detection for HVM
> > guests. Am I missing something?
>
> The -l / --location PATH|URL arg will do a kernel+initrd based install
> for either HVM or Paravirt - latest Xen support kernel+initrd boot
> of Linux HVM guests, as does KVM.

This is a regression over previous releases, where -l works for both.
(And that was a good fix, since people *always* accidentally use -l
instead of -c and get very confused. Can it be fixed?

regards
john

_______________________________________________
et-mgmt-tools mailing list
et-mgmt-tools@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/et-mgmt-tools

Cole Robinson 12-03-2008 03:46 PM

HVM installs are broken?
 
John Levon wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 09:49:50AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>
>>> virt-install -d -n domu-225 -r 1024 --hvm --vnc -f
>>> /export/guests/2008.11/root.img --os-type=windows -l
>>> /net/heaped/export/netimage/windows/xp.iso
>>>
>>> Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:36:58 DEBUG Using libvirt URI connect 'xen'
>>> Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:36:58 DEBUG Requesting virt method 'hvm'
>>> Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:36:58 DEBUG Received virt method 'hvm'
>>> ...
>>> Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:36:58 DEBUG Attempting to detect distro:
>>> ...
>>> Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:36:58 DEBUG Cleaning up mount at
>>> /var/lib/xen/virtinstmnt.REF5Hf
>>> Could not find an installable distribution at '/net/heaped/export/netimage/windows/xp.iso'
>>>
>>> Looks like it's no longer skipping the PV install detection for HVM
>>> guests. Am I missing something?
>> The -l / --location PATH|URL arg will do a kernel+initrd based install
>> for either HVM or Paravirt - latest Xen support kernel+initrd boot
>> of Linux HVM guests, as does KVM.
>
> This is a regression over previous releases, where -l works for both.
> (And that was a good fix, since people *always* accidentally use -l
> instead of -c and get very confused. Can it be fixed?
>
> regards
> john
>

If it worked before, I'm fine with having it work again as long as it's
feasible. Both options are largely going through the same codepath anyways.

- Cole

_______________________________________________
et-mgmt-tools mailing list
et-mgmt-tools@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/et-mgmt-tools

"Daniel P. Berrange" 12-03-2008 03:50 PM

HVM installs are broken?
 
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 04:37:28PM +0000, John Levon wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 09:49:50AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>
> > > virt-install -d -n domu-225 -r 1024 --hvm --vnc -f
> > > /export/guests/2008.11/root.img --os-type=windows -l
> > > /net/heaped/export/netimage/windows/xp.iso
> > >
> > > Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:36:58 DEBUG Using libvirt URI connect 'xen'
> > > Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:36:58 DEBUG Requesting virt method 'hvm'
> > > Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:36:58 DEBUG Received virt method 'hvm'
> > > ...
> > > Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:36:58 DEBUG Attempting to detect distro:
> > > ...
> > > Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:36:58 DEBUG Cleaning up mount at
> > > /var/lib/xen/virtinstmnt.REF5Hf
> > > Could not find an installable distribution at '/net/heaped/export/netimage/windows/xp.iso'
> > >
> > > Looks like it's no longer skipping the PV install detection for HVM
> > > guests. Am I missing something?
> >
> > The -l / --location PATH|URL arg will do a kernel+initrd based install
> > for either HVM or Paravirt - latest Xen support kernel+initrd boot
> > of Linux HVM guests, as does KVM.
>
> This is a regression over previous releases, where -l works for both.
> (And that was a good fix, since people *always* accidentally use -l
> instead of -c and get very confused. Can it be fixed?

That was a bug in a previous release. We need to have distinct meaning
for them, because many distros images & hypervisors will support both
kernel+initrd and BIOS based provisioning, so we need to be able to
distinguish between them.

Daniel
--
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|

_______________________________________________
et-mgmt-tools mailing list
et-mgmt-tools@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/et-mgmt-tools

John Levon 12-03-2008 04:23 PM

HVM installs are broken?
 
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 04:50:36PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:

> > This is a regression over previous releases, where -l works for both.
> > (And that was a good fix, since people *always* accidentally use -l
> > instead of -c and get very confused. Can it be fixed?
>
> That was a bug in a previous release.

One of those bugs users love :)

> We need to have distinct meaning for them, because many distros images
> & hypervisors will support both kernel+initrd and BIOS based
> provisioning, so we need to be able to distinguish between them.

Isn't the correct solution to add another virt type (--hvm-whatever),
not make life miserable for the users?

At the *very* least, can't we decide whether to try kernel+initrd based
upon detected OS type? I have a queued patch that adds 'os_type' to each
of the OSDistro classes.

regards
john

_______________________________________________
et-mgmt-tools mailing list
et-mgmt-tools@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/et-mgmt-tools

"Daniel P. Berrange" 12-03-2008 07:07 PM

HVM installs are broken?
 
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 05:23:35PM +0000, John Levon wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 04:50:36PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>
> > > This is a regression over previous releases, where -l works for both.
> > > (And that was a good fix, since people *always* accidentally use -l
> > > instead of -c and get very confused. Can it be fixed?
> >
> > That was a bug in a previous release.
>
> One of those bugs users love :)
>
> > We need to have distinct meaning for them, because many distros images
> > & hypervisors will support both kernel+initrd and BIOS based
> > provisioning, so we need to be able to distinguish between them.
>
> Isn't the correct solution to add another virt type (--hvm-whatever),
> not make life miserable for the users?
>
> At the *very* least, can't we decide whether to try kernel+initrd based
> upon detected OS type? I have a queued patch that adds 'os_type' to each
> of the OSDistro classes.

Unfortunately it varies based on (os type + hv type + hv version).

eg, Xen 3.0.3 cannot do HVM installs off kernel+initrd, but Xen 3.4.0
can, and any KVM can. We really want to prefer kernel+intrd whereever
possible because it allows 100% un-attended automated kickstarts
without needing a network provisioning server.

Perhaps what we really need is a libvirt capabilities XML extension to
indicate what boot targets are supported. We currently have 4 choices
host bootloader (pygrub), kernel+initrd, BIOS boo, and process init
(container based virt only). Even so we still have a problem with talking
to older libvirt which didn't support this.

Daniel
--
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|

_______________________________________________
et-mgmt-tools mailing list
et-mgmt-tools@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/et-mgmt-tools

John Levon 12-03-2008 07:21 PM

HVM installs are broken?
 
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 08:07:08PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:

> > > We need to have distinct meaning for them, because many distros images
> > > & hypervisors will support both kernel+initrd and BIOS based
> > > provisioning, so we need to be able to distinguish between them.
> >
> > Isn't the correct solution to add another virt type (--hvm-whatever),
> > not make life miserable for the users?
> >
> > At the *very* least, can't we decide whether to try kernel+initrd based
> > upon detected OS type? I have a queued patch that adds 'os_type' to each
> > of the OSDistro classes.
>
> Unfortunately it varies based on (os type + hv type + hv version).

True. But Windows and Solaris isn't ever going to do it.

regards
john

_______________________________________________
et-mgmt-tools mailing list
et-mgmt-tools@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/et-mgmt-tools


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:43 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.