[gentoo-dev] Virtualization Herd

[gentoo-dev] Virtualization Herd

[Nick Devito]

Looking at the number of virtualization-related packages (xen, openvz,
and related packages) that are in portage, and the increasing complexity
of these packages (which means more problems, as usual), I'm suggesting
that a Virtualization herd be formed to handle these packages. I was
also going to suggest moving virtualization-related things out of
app-emulation, since they don't quite fit the bill of "emulation". Maybe
QEMU, Bochs, and VMWare would fit, but, not quite. These are the
packages that would be affected:

* Xen/Xen-tools
* QEMU
* OpenVZ
* Bochs
* VMWare (workstation, server, etc) 
* User-mode Linux

..and the list goes on...

Just a suggestion :)

~ Nick 
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Virtualization Herd

[Benedikt Böhm]

On Monday 03 July 2006 19:49, Nick Devito wrote:
> Looking at the number of virtualization-related packages (xen, openvz,
> and related packages) that are in portage, and the increasing complexity
> of these packages (which means more problems, as usual), I'm suggesting
> that a Virtualization herd be formed to handle these packages. I was
> also going to suggest moving virtualization-related things out of
> app-emulation, since they don't quite fit the bill of "emulation". Maybe
> QEMU, Bochs, and VMWare would fit, but, not quite. These are the
> packages that would be affected:
>
> * Xen/Xen-tools
> * QEMU
> * OpenVZ
> * Bochs
> * VMWare (workstation, server, etc)
> * User-mode Linux
>
> ..and the list goes on...

the packages related to OS-level virtualization (OpenVZ, Linux-VServer) are 
already in the vserver herd

>
> Just a suggestion :)
>
> ~ Nick
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Virtualization Herd

[Nick Devito]

Okay, in that case, extend the vserver herd to include a larger range of
virtualization stuff, including Xen, Bochs, and so on. It just seems
more fitting to group those packages together.
On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 21:48 +0200, Benedikt Böhm wrote:
> On Monday 03 July 2006 19:49, Nick Devito wrote:
> > Looking at the number of virtualization-related packages (xen, openvz,
> > and related packages) that are in portage, and the increasing complexity
> > of these packages (which means more problems, as usual), I'm suggesting
> > that a Virtualization herd be formed to handle these packages. I was
> > also going to suggest moving virtualization-related things out of
> > app-emulation, since they don't quite fit the bill of "emulation". Maybe
> > QEMU, Bochs, and VMWare would fit, but, not quite. These are the
> > packages that would be affected:
> >
> > * Xen/Xen-tools
> > * QEMU
> > * OpenVZ
> > * Bochs
> > * VMWare (workstation, server, etc)
> > * User-mode Linux
> >
> > ..and the list goes on...
> 
> the packages related to OS-level virtualization (OpenVZ, Linux-VServer) are 
> already in the vserver herd
> 
> >
> > Just a suggestion :)
> >
> > ~ Nick

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Virtualization Herd

[Benedikt Böhm]

On Monday 03 July 2006 21:56, Nick Devito wrote:
> Okay, in that case, extend the vserver herd to include a larger range of
> virtualization stuff, including Xen, Bochs, and so on. It just seems
> more fitting to group those packages together.

not really, bochs, qemu and vmware is emulation, merely used in virtualization 
environments

uml and xen do run with VMMs and don't share anything with 
OpenVZ/Linux-VServer

uml and xen could be integrated into the VPS project (with a different herd) 
but i don't know what their maintainers are thinking about this

>
> On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 21:48 +0200, Benedikt Böhm wrote:
> > On Monday 03 July 2006 19:49, Nick Devito wrote:
> > > Looking at the number of virtualization-related packages (xen, openvz,
> > > and related packages) that are in portage, and the increasing
> > > complexity of these packages (which means more problems, as usual), I'm
> > > suggesting that a Virtualization herd be formed to handle these
> > > packages. I was also going to suggest moving virtualization-related
> > > things out of app-emulation, since they don't quite fit the bill of
> > > "emulation". Maybe QEMU, Bochs, and VMWare would fit, but, not quite.
> > > These are the packages that would be affected:
> > >
> > > * Xen/Xen-tools
> > > * QEMU
> > > * OpenVZ
> > > * Bochs
> > > * VMWare (workstation, server, etc)
> > > * User-mode Linux
> > >
> > > ..and the list goes on...
> >
> > the packages related to OS-level virtualization (OpenVZ, Linux-VServer)
> > are already in the vserver herd
> >
> > > Just a suggestion :)
> > >
> > > ~ Nick

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Virtualization Herd

[Benedikt Böhm]

On Monday 03 July 2006 22:28, Benedikt Böhm wrote:
> On Monday 03 July 2006 21:56, Nick Devito wrote:
> > Okay, in that case, extend the vserver herd to include a larger range of
> > virtualization stuff, including Xen, Bochs, and so on. It just seems
> > more fitting to group those packages together.
>
> not really, bochs, qemu and vmware is emulation, merely used in
> virtualization environments

s/merely/barely/

>
> uml and xen do run with VMMs and don't share anything with
> OpenVZ/Linux-VServer
>
> uml and xen could be integrated into the VPS project (with a different
> herd) but i don't know what their maintainers are thinking about this
>
> > On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 21:48 +0200, Benedikt Böhm wrote:
> > > On Monday 03 July 2006 19:49, Nick Devito wrote:
> > > > Looking at the number of virtualization-related packages (xen,
> > > > openvz, and related packages) that are in portage, and the increasing
> > > > complexity of these packages (which means more problems, as usual),
> > > > I'm suggesting that a Virtualization herd be formed to handle these
> > > > packages. I was also going to suggest moving virtualization-related
> > > > things out of app-emulation, since they don't quite fit the bill of
> > > > "emulation". Maybe QEMU, Bochs, and VMWare would fit, but, not quite.
> > > > These are the packages that would be affected:
> > > >
> > > > * Xen/Xen-tools
> > > > * QEMU
> > > > * OpenVZ
> > > > * Bochs
> > > > * VMWare (workstation, server, etc)
> > > > * User-mode Linux
> > > >
> > > > ..and the list goes on...
> > >
> > > the packages related to OS-level virtualization (OpenVZ, Linux-VServer)
> > > are already in the vserver herd
> > >
> > > > Just a suggestion :)
> > > >
> > > > ~ Nick

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Virtualization Herd

[Nick Devito]

That's what I was trying to say is that bochs/qemu/vmware are emulation
since they emulate x86 hardware, though I would see some good by
including Xen and User-mode Linux with the VPS Project, since that seems
fitting. Oh yeah, don't forget vmware-server, that's supposely supposed
to be used in virtualization enviroments (I personally haven't tried it,
but, it's on my todo list to play around with most virtualization
technology least once :)

On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 22:38 +0200, Benedikt Böhm wrote:
> On Monday 03 July 2006 22:28, Benedikt Böhm wrote:
> > On Monday 03 July 2006 21:56, Nick Devito wrote:
> > > Okay, in that case, extend the vserver herd to include a larger range of
> > > virtualization stuff, including Xen, Bochs, and so on. It just seems
> > > more fitting to group those packages together.
> >
> > not really, bochs, qemu and vmware is emulation, merely used in
> > virtualization environments
> 
> s/merely/barely/
> 
> >
> > uml and xen do run with VMMs and don't share anything with
> > OpenVZ/Linux-VServer
> >
> > uml and xen could be integrated into the VPS project (with a different
> > herd) but i don't know what their maintainers are thinking about this
> >
> > > On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 21:48 +0200, Benedikt Böhm wrote:
> > > > On Monday 03 July 2006 19:49, Nick Devito wrote:
> > > > > Looking at the number of virtualization-related packages (xen,
> > > > > openvz, and related packages) that are in portage, and the increasing
> > > > > complexity of these packages (which means more problems, as usual),
> > > > > I'm suggesting that a Virtualization herd be formed to handle these
> > > > > packages. I was also going to suggest moving virtualization-related
> > > > > things out of app-emulation, since they don't quite fit the bill of
> > > > > "emulation". Maybe QEMU, Bochs, and VMWare would fit, but, not quite.
> > > > > These are the packages that would be affected:
> > > > >
> > > > > * Xen/Xen-tools
> > > > > * QEMU
> > > > > * OpenVZ
> > > > > * Bochs
> > > > > * VMWare (workstation, server, etc)
> > > > > * User-mode Linux
> > > > >
> > > > > ..and the list goes on...
> > > >
> > > > the packages related to OS-level virtualization (OpenVZ, Linux-VServer)
> > > > are already in the vserver herd
> > > >
> > > > > Just a suggestion :)
> > > > >
> > > > > ~ Nick
> 

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Virtualization Herd

[Daniel Gryniewicz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1323 bytes --]

On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 22:28 +0200, Benedikt Böhm wrote:
> On Monday 03 July 2006 21:56, Nick Devito wrote:
> > Okay, in that case, extend the vserver herd to include a larger range of
> > virtualization stuff, including Xen, Bochs, and so on. It just seems
> > more fitting to group those packages together.
> 
> not really, bochs, qemu and vmware is emulation, merely used in virtualization 
> environments
> 
> uml and xen do run with VMMs and don't share anything with 
> OpenVZ/Linux-VServer
> 
> uml and xen could be integrated into the VPS project (with a different herd) 
> but i don't know what their maintainers are thinking about this

UML is not complicated or hard to maintain.  I'm fairly happy
maintaining it with the help of the kernel herd, and (being a linux
kernel port) I think it really belongs in kernel, not in virtualization
or vmm or vserver, or whatever.

Maybe if there were some projects for full virtual server setups that
could use xen or uml or vmware or ... as it's underlying hosting
service, that could be useful, but just for maintenance, I don't think
it's really necessary.

I'm open to arguments in favor of such a project, tho, if people have
real plans.  Certainly, an easier way to generate and maintain root
filesystems for UML would be nice.

Daniel

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Virtualization Herd

[Nick Devito]

Generating root filesystems for UML and Xen are basically the same
process. I've heard of domi, but, bleh, I never could get it to work. I
usually just make my images in chroot, and that usually works well. But,
since the images are *basically* the same, that means it would be
possible to use the jailtime images, unless you are running on a 64-bit
arch. Then, in that case, least with gentoo, running a 64-bit kernel and
32-bit userland doesn't work for long (first glibc (re)compile, and the
whole thing borks out).
On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 21:09 -0400, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 22:28 +0200, Benedikt Böhm wrote:
> > On Monday 03 July 2006 21:56, Nick Devito wrote:
> > > Okay, in that case, extend the vserver herd to include a larger range of
> > > virtualization stuff, including Xen, Bochs, and so on. It just seems
> > > more fitting to group those packages together.
> > 
> > not really, bochs, qemu and vmware is emulation, merely used in virtualization 
> > environments
> > 
> > uml and xen do run with VMMs and don't share anything with 
> > OpenVZ/Linux-VServer
> > 
> > uml and xen could be integrated into the VPS project (with a different herd) 
> > but i don't know what their maintainers are thinking about this
> 
> UML is not complicated or hard to maintain.  I'm fairly happy
> maintaining it with the help of the kernel herd, and (being a linux
> kernel port) I think it really belongs in kernel, not in virtualization
> or vmm or vserver, or whatever.
> 
> Maybe if there were some projects for full virtual server setups that
> could use xen or uml or vmware or ... as it's underlying hosting
> service, that could be useful, but just for maintenance, I don't think
> it's really necessary.
> 
> I'm open to arguments in favor of such a project, tho, if people have
> real plans.  Certainly, an easier way to generate and maintain root
> filesystems for UML would be nice.
> 
> Daniel

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Virtualization Herd

[Daniel Gryniewicz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 966 bytes --]

On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 20:15 -0600, Nick Devito wrote:
> Generating root filesystems for UML and Xen are basically the same
> process. I've heard of domi, but, bleh, I never could get it to work. I
> usually just make my images in chroot, and that usually works well. But,
> since the images are *basically* the same, that means it would be
> possible to use the jailtime images, unless you are running on a 64-bit
> arch. Then, in that case, least with gentoo, running a 64-bit kernel and
> 32-bit userland doesn't work for long (first glibc (re)compile, and the
> whole thing borks out).

I'm on amd64, as my primary arch.  I generally use a chroot, as well,
and have knocked up some scripts to help me, but a well-designed package
to do it would be very helpful.  Maybe I'll write one...

Several patches just went into -mm to make UML work well as a 32-bit
process on 64-bit arches, which would make the root image a pure 32-bit
image.

Daniel

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Virtualization Herd

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 832 bytes --]

On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 21:09 -0400, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote:
> I'm open to arguments in favor of such a project, tho, if people have
> real plans.  Certainly, an easier way to generate and maintain root
> filesystems for UML would be nice.

As far as VMware is concerned, I see no point in this herd.  All of the
VMware stuff is already managed by the VMware team, and is a part of the
vmware herd.  Adding it to a broader herd won't improve VMware in any
way.  The only thing it will do is ensure that the members of the VMware
team get emails about bugs in things they aren't interested in working
with, or have no knowledge of whatsoever.

If such a herd does form, leave VMware out of it, please.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Virtualization Herd

[Benedikt Böhm]

On Wednesday 05 July 2006 14:48, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 21:09 -0400, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote:
> > I'm open to arguments in favor of such a project, tho, if people have
> > real plans.  Certainly, an easier way to generate and maintain root
> > filesystems for UML would be nice.
>
> As far as VMware is concerned, I see no point in this herd.  All of the
> VMware stuff is already managed by the VMware team, and is a part of the
> vmware herd.  Adding it to a broader herd won't improve VMware in any
> way.  The only thing it will do is ensure that the members of the VMware
> team get emails about bugs in things they aren't interested in working
> with, or have no knowledge of whatsoever.

i agree, same applies for the vserver herd (currently maintaining openvz and 
linux-vserver)

>
> If such a herd does form, leave VMware out of it, please.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Virtualization Herd

[Chris Bainbridge]

On 03/07/06, Benedikt Böhm <hollow@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Monday 03 July 2006 21:56, Nick Devito wrote:
> > Okay, in that case, extend the vserver herd to include a larger range of
> > virtualization stuff, including Xen, Bochs, and so on. It just seems
> > more fitting to group those packages together.
>
> not really, bochs, qemu and vmware is emulation, merely used in virtualization
> environments

Qemu (with the kqemu module) and vmware both directly execute the
native bytecode. Bochs is the only real emulator.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Virtualization Herd

[Nick Devito]

Yeah, to me, having those in the emulation category just
doesn't...."fit" there, but, that's just me. Maybe we could take xen,
vmware, qemu, and related packages out of app-emulation, and make a new
category, app-virtualization. That would seem to fit a bit better then
emulation.  
On Tue, 2006-07-04 at 12:11 +0100, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> On 03/07/06, Benedikt Böhm <hollow@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Monday 03 July 2006 21:56, Nick Devito wrote:
> > > Okay, in that case, extend the vserver herd to include a larger range of
> > > virtualization stuff, including Xen, Bochs, and so on. It just seems
> > > more fitting to group those packages together.
> >
> > not really, bochs, qemu and vmware is emulation, merely used in virtualization
> > environments
> 
> Qemu (with the kqemu module) and vmware both directly execute the
> native bytecode. Bochs is the only real emulator.
> 

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Virtualization Herd

[Ned Ludd]

On Tue, 2006-07-04 at 07:59 -0600, Nick Devito wrote:
> Yeah, to me, having those in the emulation category just
> doesn't...."fit" there, but, that's just me. Maybe we could take xen,
> vmware, qemu, and related packages out of app-emulation, and make a new
> category, app-virtualization. That would seem to fit a bit better then
> emulation.  

Everything looks perfectly fine the way it is right now.
Changing stuff for the sake of changing stuff does nothing but 
cause other people problems. Forcing a package moves which 
incramentally makes doing package updates take longer and longer 
over time. It also forces people to run fixpackages more than 
they really should ever have to. Sometimes even causing a full 
remerge of the package. Please just be happy that the packages all
exist and are being well maintained after.


-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Virtualization Herd

[Kevin F. Quinn]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1331 bytes --]

On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 07:59:12 -0600
Nick Devito <nick125@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yeah, to me, having those in the emulation category just
> doesn't...."fit" there, but, that's just me. Maybe we could take xen,
> vmware, qemu, and related packages out of app-emulation, and make a
> new category, app-virtualization. That would seem to fit a bit better
> then emulation.  

Waste of time, subjective reasoning, and just causes too much
unnecessary disruption.  

> On Tue, 2006-07-04 at 12:11 +0100, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> > On 03/07/06, Benedikt Böhm <hollow@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > On Monday 03 July 2006 21:56, Nick Devito wrote:
> > > > Okay, in that case, extend the vserver herd to include a larger
> > > > range of virtualization stuff, including Xen, Bochs, and so on.
> > > > It just seems more fitting to group those packages together.
> > >
> > > not really, bochs, qemu and vmware is emulation, merely used in
> > > virtualization environments
> > 
> > Qemu (with the kqemu module) and vmware both directly execute the
> > native bytecode. Bochs is the only real emulator.

For the record, Qemu is much more than virtualisation; indeed
virtualisation is just a small part of what Qemu can do. Emulation is
the main thing that Qemu does, for many targets on many hosts.

-- 
Kevin F. Quinn

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Virtualization Herd

[Kevin F. Quinn]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 779 bytes --]

On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 07:59:12 -0600
Nick Devito <nick125@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yeah, to me, having those in the emulation category just
> doesn't...."fit" there, but, that's just me. Maybe we could take xen,
> vmware, qemu, and related packages out of app-emulation, and make a
> new category, app-virtualization. That would seem to fit a bit better
> then emulation.  

Oh; and one more thing - please don't confuse herds with categories.
herds are defined by metadata, not the package location in the portage
tree.  Moving stuff in herds is pretty painless, provided all the
relevant maintainers agree - indeed, a package can belong to more than
one herd. However changing a package's category is much more
disruptive and should be avoided.

-- 
Kevin F. Quinn

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Virtualization Herd

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1432 bytes --]

On Tue, 2006-07-04 at 07:59 -0600, Nick Devito wrote:
> Yeah, to me, having those in the emulation category just
> doesn't...."fit" there, but, that's just me. Maybe we could take xen,
> vmware, qemu, and related packages out of app-emulation, and make a new
> category, app-virtualization. That would seem to fit a bit better then
> emulation.

Package moves suck.  They make finding history on the packages much
harder, and there's really no need for it.  I'd be against it for
VMware.  We don't need anything that makes our lives more complex.
VMware's ability to have all of the modules break on every single kernel
release keeps us busy enough, as it is.

> On Tue, 2006-07-04 at 12:11 +0100, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> > On 03/07/06, Benedikt Böhm <hollow@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > On Monday 03 July 2006 21:56, Nick Devito wrote:
> > > > Okay, in that case, extend the vserver herd to include a larger range of
> > > > virtualization stuff, including Xen, Bochs, and so on. It just seems
> > > > more fitting to group those packages together.
> > >
> > > not really, bochs, qemu and vmware is emulation, merely used in virtualization
> > > environments
> > 
> > Qemu (with the kqemu module) and vmware both directly execute the
> > native bytecode. Bochs is the only real emulator.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]