On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 08:15 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Alex Muntada (email@example.com):
> > + Serge E. Hallyn <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > From what I see online it definately seems to make a huge difference.
> > > For Lucid and Maverick I think the best we can do at this point is to
> > > tell the user about it. For Natty, well the best option is to have you
> > > work with upstream to change the default there. Sounds like you've got
> > > a posse forming to back you up
> > Just want to point out that there's a bug about this on LP:
> > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/virt-manager/+bug/568445
> Hm, I see, and Anthony's comment #6 makes a lot of sense to me.
> Like he says, I only use virt-manager for casual use. For real
> tests, well I tend to use kvm cmdline, but on remote servers
> lately I use libvirt directly so that I can do things like create
> base.xml, then
> for i in `seq 1 20`; do
> cp base.xml vm$i.xml
> sed -i 'whatever' vm$i.xml
> virsh define vm$i.xml
> So I guess before we consider carrying a patch just in ubuntu,
> we should answer the question - do we expect users who are trying
> out kvm just once to use virt-manager or testdrive?
Anthony's observation about virt-manager may be valid, but I sure know a
lot of people who use it every day as a part of their daily workflow (me
not included -- I use virsh/libvirt exclusively (surprise)).
I like Serge's idea of testing and if there is a positive improvement,
make the change in libvirt itself so all consumers (like eucalyptus,
openstack, straight virsh users, etc) can benefit. If that doesn't fit
virt-manager use cases, update it to use a different sensible default.
Jamie Strandboge | http://www.canonical.com
ubuntu-server mailing list
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam