xen discuss - Aug 2007 - Creating a Virtualization Community Group

Discussion on the OGB-discuss list regarding creating a LDOM (Logical
Domain) Community, has again brought up the question of whether to form a
combined virtualization community group. (With XEN, LDOM, and Zones all
being working groups in the CG, and individual projects likely falling
within the scope of a working group.).

To do this we would need buy-in from the existing XEN and Zones community
groups, as it would be relatively pointless to do this without these them.

I am not aware of any major reasons that someone might be opposed to this.
Please feel free to either voice your support or opposition. (Also, I think
it would add some weight to the proposal if community group leaders and core
contributers are willing to sponsor this change.)

Thanks,
Brian

On Tue 08/07/07 at 16:18 PM, brandorr@opensolaris.org
wrote:
> Discussion on the OGB-discuss list regarding creating a LDOM (Logical
> Domain) Community, has again brought up the question of whether to form a
> combined virtualization community group. (With XEN, LDOM, and Zones all
> being working groups in the CG, and individual projects likely falling
> within the scope of a working group.).
> 
> To do this we would need buy-in from the existing XEN and Zones community
> groups, as it would be relatively pointless to do this without these them.
> 
> I am not aware of any major reasons that someone might be opposed to this.
> Please feel free to either voice your support or opposition. (Also, I think
> it would add some weight to the proposal if community group leaders and
core
> contributers are willing to sponsor this change.)
I think we went through this a couple of months ago, and all the interested
parties were fine with that idea.  I don''t remember any official word
as to
why the idea was scuttled.

Nils

Hi,

There is so much discussion in these areas that it would be most
undesirable to combine these 3 different areas.

Recommend that they be kept distinct.

However, I do agree that there are topics that would appeal to
all 3 areas. In such cases recommend that people send their
comments to the 3 discussion aliases in a single email.

Regards,
Ellard


Brandorr wrote:
> Discussion on the OGB-discuss list regarding creating a LDOM (Logical
> Domain) Community, has again brought up the question of whether to form a
> combined virtualization community group. (With XEN, LDOM, and Zones all
> being working groups in the CG, and individual projects likely falling
> within the scope of a working group.).
> 
> To do this we would need buy-in from the existing XEN and Zones community
> groups, as it would be relatively pointless to do this without these them.
> 
> I am not aware of any major reasons that someone might be opposed to this.
> Please feel free to either voice your support or opposition. (Also, I think
> it would add some weight to the proposal if community group leaders and
core
> contributers are willing to sponsor this change.)
> 
> Thanks,
> Brian
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> zones-discuss mailing list
> zones-discuss@opensolaris.org

Ellard Roush writes:
> There is so much discussion in these areas that it would be most
> undesirable to combine these 3 different areas.
An excess of discussion sounds like stuff that belongs on a narrower
project or subgroup mailing list, not a reason to avoid a community
group focusing on virtualization.

It''s the difference between choosing
''opensolaris-discuss'' versus
''myproject-dev'' when figuring out where to send a message.
> Recommend that they be kept distinct.
> 
> However, I do agree that there are topics that would appeal to
> all 3 areas. In such cases recommend that people send their
> comments to the 3 discussion aliases in a single email.
Note that communities get to steer their technologies independently.
Is it good for Solaris if these three groups end up with conflicting
choices for common components, such as software install and
management?

If that''s not good, then I''d suggest that a single
virtualization
group would be a good way to start.

In fact, other than a possibly excessive list of community group
leaders and core contributors, I find it a little hard to understand
why separate CGs would be helpful here.

-- 
James Carlson, Solaris Networking              <james.d.carlson@sun.com>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive         71.232W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.496N   Fax +1 781 442 1677

Ellard Roush wrote:

I agree with Ellard -- the goal of Xen, LDOMs, and Zones is the same but 
the details are very different

regards

Bernd
> Hi,
>
> There is so much discussion in these areas that it would be most
> undesirable to combine these 3 different areas.
>
> Recommend that they be kept distinct.
>
> However, I do agree that there are topics that would appeal to
> all 3 areas. In such cases recommend that people send their
> comments to the 3 discussion aliases in a single email.
>
> Regards,
> Ellard
>
>
> Brandorr wrote:
>   
>> Discussion on the OGB-discuss list regarding creating a LDOM (Logical
>> Domain) Community, has again brought up the question of whether to form
a
>> combined virtualization community group. (With XEN, LDOM, and Zones all
>> being working groups in the CG, and individual projects likely falling
>> within the scope of a working group.).
>>
>> To do this we would need buy-in from the existing XEN and Zones
community
>> groups, as it would be relatively pointless to do this without these
them.
>>
>> I am not aware of any major reasons that someone might be opposed to
this.
>> Please feel free to either voice your support or opposition. (Also, I
think
>> it would add some weight to the proposal if community group leaders and
core
>> contributers are willing to sponsor this change.)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Brian
>>
>>
>>
>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> zones-discuss mailing list
>> zones-discuss@opensolaris.org
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> brandz-discuss mailing list
> brandz-discuss@opensolaris.org
>
>   

-- 
Bernd Schemmer, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
http://home.arcor.de/bnsmb/index.html

M s temprano que tarde el mundo cambiar .
                        Fidel Castro

On 8/7/07, Ellard Roush <Ellard.Roush@sun.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There is so much discussion in these areas that it would be most
> undesirable to combine these 3 different areas.
Combining communities does not mean that they all share the same
mailing lists.  zones-discuss, xen-discuss, et. al. would continue to
exist as they do now.

I think that what this would mean is...

Brandz, Xen, and Zones would be three new projects in the
Virtualization[1] community.

The following web areas would move into project pages to make way for
the new Virtualization Community page.   This page may be useful as a
place for newbies to figure out which of the various strategies are
useful in different circumstances.

http://opensolaris.org/os/community/brandz/
http://opensolaris.org/os/community/xen/
http://opensolaris.org/os/community/zones/

A new Logical Domains project would likely start in this community.

There would likely be a virtualization-discuss[2] list as a catch all
for those discussions that don''t fit neatly into one of the project
lists above.

The contributors and core contributors of existing communities would
be recognized as the same in the new community.  I would only see this
as substantial if there was ill-will between the various groups
because core contributors could have -1 wars.  I really, really, don''t
foresee that happening.

I personally have nothing against the idea.  Aside from giving a
one-stop place to compare virtualization strategies (which could
easily exist in another place) I''m not sure I see a whole lot of
benefit.  For now my vote is a +0.25.  I don''t think the constitution
allows that, so I figure out if it is a 0 or +1 after a bit more
discussion takes place.

1.  I would prefer "Server Virtualization" - there''s lots of
other
virtualization in Solaris that is not part of this community.
2. Or "v12n-discuss" to not chew up the entire subject line.


-- 
Mike Gerdts
http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/

On Tue 07 Aug 2007 at 04:29PM, Nils Nieuwejaar wrote:
> On Tue 08/07/07 at 16:18 PM, brandorr@opensolaris.org wrote:
> > Discussion on the OGB-discuss list regarding creating a LDOM (Logical
> > Domain) Community, has again brought up the question of whether to
form a
> > combined virtualization community group. (With XEN, LDOM, and Zones
all
> > being working groups in the CG, and individual projects likely falling
> > within the scope of a working group.).
> > 
> > To do this we would need buy-in from the existing XEN and Zones
community
> > groups, as it would be relatively pointless to do this without these
them.
> > 
> > I am not aware of any major reasons that someone might be opposed to
this.
> > Please feel free to either voice your support or opposition. (Also, I
think
> > it would add some weight to the proposal if community group leaders
and core
> > contributers are willing to sponsor this change.)
> 
> I think we went through this a couple of months ago, and all the interested
> parties were fine with that idea.  I don''t remember any official
word as to
> why the idea was scuttled.
Yeah, me too.

To respond to Ellard''s point: Communities can host multiple mailing
lists.  So "zones-discuss" will stay "zones-discuss", etc.

        -dp

-- 
Daniel Price - Solaris Kernel Engineering - dp@eng.sun.com - blogs.sun.com/dp

vmware-interest@sun.com often discusses virtualization in a general 
sense.  I often see people bring up questions regarding comparing 
different virtualization implementations.  

Has it been considered to use this?   (Granted the alias name appears to 
limit the focus to vmware...)

Russ


Nils Nieuwejaar wrote:
>On Tue 08/07/07 at 16:18 PM, brandorr@opensolaris.org wrote:
>  
>
>>Discussion on the OGB-discuss list regarding creating a LDOM (Logical
>>Domain) Community, has again brought up the question of whether to form
a
>>combined virtualization community group. (With XEN, LDOM, and Zones all
>>being working groups in the CG, and individual projects likely falling
>>within the scope of a working group.).
>>
>>To do this we would need buy-in from the existing XEN and Zones
community
>>groups, as it would be relatively pointless to do this without these
them.
>>
>>I am not aware of any major reasons that someone might be opposed to
this.
>>Please feel free to either voice your support or opposition. (Also, I
think
>>it would add some weight to the proposal if community group leaders and
core
>>contributers are willing to sponsor this change.)
>>    
>>
>
>I think we went through this a couple of months ago, and all the interested
>parties were fine with that idea.  I don''t remember any official
word as to
>why the idea was scuttled.
>
>Nils
>_______________________________________________
>zones-discuss mailing list
>zones-discuss@opensolaris.org
>  
>

Hi Russ

On 7 Aug 2007, at 15:14, Russ Petruzzelli wrote:
> vmware-interest@sun.com often discusses virtualization in a general  
> sense.  I often see people bring up questions regarding comparing  
> different virtualization implementations.
It is at this point an internal alias and I don''t see this changing  
in the short term. I think it wouldn''t be the ideal community for  
this, though some of its members would probably be interested in  
joining an additional alias for non VMware/Sun discussions.

Tony
>
> Has it been considered to use this?   (Granted the alias name  
> appears to limit the focus to vmware...)
>
> Russ
>
>
> Nils Nieuwejaar wrote:
>> On Tue 08/07/07 at 16:18 PM, brandorr@opensolaris.org wrote:
>>> Discussion on the OGB-discuss list regarding creating a LDOM  
>>> (Logical Domain) Community, has again brought up the question of  
>>> whether to form a combined virtualization community group. (With  
>>> XEN, LDOM, and Zones all being working groups in the CG, and  
>>> individual projects likely falling within the scope of a working  
>>> group.). To do this we would need buy-in from the existing XEN  
>>> and Zones community groups, as it would be relatively pointless  
>>> to do this without these them. I am not aware of any major  
>>> reasons that someone might be opposed to this. Please feel free  
>>> to either voice your support or opposition. (Also, I think it  
>>> would add some weight to the proposal if community group leaders  
>>> and core contributers are willing to sponsor this change.)
>> I think we went through this a couple of months ago, and all the  
>> interested parties were fine with that idea. I don''t remember
any
>> official word as to why the idea was scuttled. Nils  
>> _______________________________________________ zones-discuss  
>> mailing list zones-discuss@opensolaris.org
> _______________________________________________
> zones-discuss mailing list
> zones-discuss@opensolaris.org
--
Tony Kay

Systems Virtualization Manager
Systems Group
Sun Microsystems
+1 303 517 1844

On Tue 07 Aug 2007 at 04:14PM, Tony Kay wrote:
> Hi Russ
> 
> On 7 Aug 2007, at 15:14, Russ Petruzzelli wrote:
> 
> > vmware-interest@sun.com often discusses virtualization in a general  
> > sense.  I often see people bring up questions regarding comparing  
> > different virtualization implementations.
> 
> It is at this point an internal alias and I don''t see this
changing
> in the short term. I think it wouldn''t be the ideal community for
> this, though some of its members would probably be interested in  
> joining an additional alias for non VMware/Sun discussions.
A "Solaris on VMWare" project might (might, after due consideration)
be an appropriate project to fall under for the V12N community, but no
one has (as far as I know) stepped forward to create such a project.

        -dp

-- 
Daniel Price - Solaris Kernel Engineering - dp@eng.sun.com - blogs.sun.com/dp

+1

keep them separated.

Jerry


Ellard Roush wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> There is so much discussion in these areas that it would be most
> undesirable to combine these 3 different areas.
> 
> Recommend that they be kept distinct.
> 
> However, I do agree that there are topics that would appeal to
> all 3 areas. In such cases recommend that people send their
> comments to the 3 discussion aliases in a single email.
> 
> Regards,
> Ellard
> 
>

On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 04:18:18PM -0400, Brandorr
wrote:
> Discussion on the OGB-discuss list regarding creating a LDOM (Logical
> Domain) Community, has again brought up the question of whether to form a
> combined virtualization community group. (With XEN, LDOM, and Zones all
> being working groups in the CG, and individual projects likely falling
> within the scope of a working group.).
> 
> To do this we would need buy-in from the existing XEN and Zones community
> groups, as it would be relatively pointless to do this without these them.
> 
> I am not aware of any major reasons that someone might be opposed to this.
> Please feel free to either voice your support or opposition. (Also, I think
> it would add some weight to the proposal if community group leaders and
core
> contributers are willing to sponsor this change.)
Whilst the individual technologies differ in implementation
significantly, they share many common attributes. Combining them under
a group umbrella seems like a good idea.

dme.

Ellard Roush wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> There is so much discussion in these areas that it would be most
> undesirable to combine these 3 different areas.
> 
> Recommend that they be kept distinct.
I think that an overall community would be very helpful.

However as you point out there is a large amount of discussion and I 
think it is perfectly reasonable that a single community group of 
OpenSolaris have multiple discussion lists.

There is also a need for both common and distinct web presence for Xen, 
LDOMS and Zones.

-- 
Darren J Moffat

Russ Petruzzelli wrote:
> vmware-interest@sun.com often discusses virtualization in a general 
> sense.  I often see people bring up questions regarding comparing 
> different virtualization implementations.  
> 
> Has it been considered to use this?   (Granted the alias name appears to 
> limit the focus to vmware...)
This is OpenSolaris.  Non Sun employees can''t join private @sun.com 
aliases such as the one you describe, the archives for the alias aren''t
public and by being an @sun.com alias it is assumed that customer 
confidential information can be shared on it.

Also VMware is closed source and nothing to do with OpenSolaris (other 
than the company seems to keep poaching engineers!) unlike LDOMS, Xen 
and Zones which are part of OpenSolaris now or are being developed in 
that community for integration into one of the "consolidation"
projects
also hosted on OpenSolari.

-- 
Darren J Moffat

Darren J Moffat <Darren.Moffat@Sun.COM> wrote:
> Also VMware is closed source and nothing to do with OpenSolaris (other 
> than the company seems to keep poaching engineers!) unlike LDOMS, Xen 
> and Zones which are part of OpenSolaris now or are being developed in 
> that community for integration into one of the "consolidation"
projects
> also hosted on OpenSolari.
For this reason, vmware is of no interest to me as long as I cannot run
vmware _on_ OpenSolaris.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       js@cs.tu-berlin.de                (uni)  
       schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de     (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

IMHO, if opensolaris can be supported guest OS in vmware
then vmware  has something to do with opensolaris.
some obvious advantage
1)U can create opensolaris  image very easily and distribute it one the 
web for user to try it out, U can also build appliance with some 
application into the image
2)It can be a playgroud to attract more developer, most developer use 
vmware, or like environmnet to install multiple OS to do test of the 
application
3)product demonstration will be easier,  follow SE can have demo 
environment to show case most if not all solaris/JES 
/comm/java_caps/developer/studio/storage.
Untill (open)Solaris/xen  can support such environment,  today vmware is 
the leader, SE need to understand the technology to talk about virt anyway
my 2c

Darren J Moffat wrote:
>Russ Petruzzelli wrote:
>  
>
>>vmware-interest@sun.com often discusses virtualization in a general 
>>sense.  I often see people bring up questions regarding comparing 
>>different virtualization implementations.  
>>
>>Has it been considered to use this?   (Granted the alias name appears to
>>limit the focus to vmware...)
>>    
>>
>
>This is OpenSolaris.  Non Sun employees can''t join private @sun.com
>aliases such as the one you describe, the archives for the alias
aren''t
>public and by being an @sun.com alias it is assumed that customer 
>confidential information can be shared on it.
>
>Also VMware is closed source and nothing to do with OpenSolaris (other 
>than the company seems to keep poaching engineers!) unlike LDOMS, Xen 
>and Zones which are part of OpenSolaris now or are being developed in 
>that community for integration into one of the "consolidation"
projects
>also hosted on OpenSolari.
>
>  
>
-- 
Hung-Sheng Tsao, Ph.D. (LaoTsao)       Sr. System Engineer
US, State Local & Education East        Data Center Ambassador
400 Atrium Dr, 1ST FLOOR                P/F:1877 319 0460 (x67079)
Somerset, NJ 08873                      C: 973 495 0840
http://blogs.sun.com/hstsao/            E:Hung-Sheng.Tsao@sun.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOTICE:  This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited.  If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy
all copies of the original message.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LaoTsao(Dr. Tsao) wrote:
> IMHO, if opensolaris can be supported guest OS in vmware
> then vmware  has something to do with opensolaris.
> some obvious advantage
I agree but all the things you listed (which I''ve deleted from my
reply)
are better suited to other OpenSolaris communities than Virtualisation. 
  They appear to me to be more about advocacy or system admin and 
providing prebuilt "try out" solutions rather than how viritualisation
is actually implemented which would be the major focus of a 
Virtualisation community.

-- 
Darren J Moffat

hi
yes and no
as a field SE, my interest in virt is very simple
1)find out why customer is using which virt tech for what, and SUN can 
support their need in various virt tech from Sun or 3rd party
2)not really into code, but would like inference the discussion on 
implementation, provision and management of various virt tech
3)help  to create plan for SUN to attack the virt market and grow Sun
regards


Darren J Moffat wrote:
> LaoTsao(Dr. Tsao) wrote:
>
>> IMHO, if opensolaris can be supported guest OS in vmware
>> then vmware  has something to do with opensolaris.
>> some obvious advantage
>
>
> I agree but all the things you listed (which I''ve deleted from my 
> reply) are better suited to other OpenSolaris communities than 
> Virtualisation.  They appear to me to be more about advocacy or system 
> admin and providing prebuilt "try out" solutions rather than how 
> viritualisation is actually implemented which would be the major focus 
> of a Virtualisation community.
>
-- 
Hung-Sheng Tsao, Ph.D. (LaoTsao)       Sr. System Engineer
US, State Local & Education East        Data Center Ambassador
400 Atrium Dr, 1ST FLOOR                P/F:1877 319 0460 (x67079)
Somerset, NJ 08873                      C: 973 495 0840
http://blogs.sun.com/hstsao/            E:Hung-Sheng.Tsao@sun.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOTICE:  This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited.  If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy
all copies of the original message.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On 8/7/07, Nils Nieuwejaar <nils.nieuwejaar@sun.com>
wrote:
> On Tue 08/07/07 at 16:18 PM, brandorr@opensolaris.org wrote:
> > Discussion on the OGB-discuss list regarding creating a LDOM (Logical
> > Domain) Community, has again brought up the question of whether to
form a
> > combined virtualization community group. (With XEN, LDOM, and Zones
all
> > being working groups in the CG, and individual projects likely falling
> > within the scope of a working group.).
> >
> > To do this we would need buy-in from the existing XEN and Zones
community
> > groups, as it would be relatively pointless to do this without these
them.
> >
> > I am not aware of any major reasons that someone might be opposed to
this.
> > Please feel free to either voice your support or opposition. (Also, I
think
> > it would add some weight to the proposal if community group leaders
and core
> > contributers are willing to sponsor this change.)
>
> I think we went through this a couple of months ago, and all the interested
> parties were fine with that idea.  I don''t remember any official
word as to
> why the idea was scuttled.
>
> Nils
>
Probably for the same reason this thread almost died. (It
unfortunately got caught in a filter.)

It seems there is a majority of people in favor of this. What do we
need to do to make it happen?

-- 
- Brian Gupta

http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/

Brandorr writes:
> It seems there is a majority of people in favor of this. What do we
> need to do to make it happen?
I think the main barrier is getting the LDoms team to agree.  They
seem to feel that they need a separate community from the rest of the
virtualization mechanisms on Solaris, and that a common community
would serve no useful purpose.

I don''t quite agree, but in our last OGB meeting, we did approve the
LDoms community proposal.

Going ahead with a virtualization community that _doesn''t_ involve
LDoms seems much more feasible to me.

-- 
James Carlson, Solaris Networking              <james.d.carlson@sun.com>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive         71.232W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.496N   Fax +1 781 442 1677

James Carlson wrote:
> Brandorr writes:
>> It seems there is a majority of people in favor of this. What do we
>> need to do to make it happen?
> 
> I think the main barrier is getting the LDoms team to agree.  They
> seem to feel that they need a separate community from the rest of the
> virtualization mechanisms on Solaris, and that a common community
> would serve no useful purpose.
> 
The LDoms team requested that an LDoms community be created in keeping with the
existing BrandZ, Xen and Zones communities (i.e. created on an equal footing to
those communities).

We asked for an LDoms community so that we could get up and running now
independently of discussions to create an overall Virtualization community.
> I don''t quite agree, but in our last OGB meeting, we did approve
the
> LDoms community proposal.
> 
> Going ahead with a virtualization community that _doesn''t_ involve
> LDoms seems much more feasible to me.
The LDoms community would be happy to be part of an umbrella Virtualization
community involving the BrandZ, LDoms, Xen and Zones communities (or as
projects - depending on what OS.o process is ultimately decided on).

Once the LDoms Community have a place to put email lists, webpages and code
repositories the discussions that are LDoms specific can happen there and the
discussions and collaborations that span all the communities can happen in the
Virtualization community. Hopefully as the LDoms community comes up to speed,
those of us who have not been vocal on OS.o aliases can contribute more to all
the communities. The LDoms community would be more that satisfied to be part of
an overall cohesive virtualization community

-- Liam

Liam Merwick writes:
> The LDoms community would be happy to be part of an umbrella Virtualization
> community involving the BrandZ, LDoms, Xen and Zones communities (or as
> projects - depending on what OS.o process is ultimately decided on).
This isn''t the rationale that was provided to the OGB.  The rationale
provided looks more like this:

  http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ogb-discuss/2007-August/002239.html

and this:

  http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ogb-discuss/2007-August/002250.html

That is, LDoms are special.  We were told rather directly that there
was no point in having a Virtualization community because there was
_NOTHING_ that could be shared between these projects -- no high level
management or coordination, no tools support, and no joint projects.

If that''s not true, then it certainly comes as news to me.
> the communities. The LDoms community would be more that satisfied to be
part of
> an overall cohesive virtualization community
Then I don''t understand why the repeated requests by OGB members and
others to go this direction -- to create a Virtualization community to
cover LDoms, Xen, Zones, and others -- were rejected by the LDoms
proponents.

The only ones in favor of the broader community were the other groups,
such as Xen:

  http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ogb-discuss/2007-August/002234.html

-- 
James Carlson, Solaris Networking              <james.d.carlson@sun.com>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive         71.232W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.496N   Fax +1 781 442 1677

On Thu 08/23/07 at 09:26 AM, James.D.Carlson@Sun.COM
wrote:
> Liam Merwick writes:
> > The LDoms community would be happy to be part of an umbrella
Virtualization
> > community involving the BrandZ, LDoms, Xen and Zones communities (or
as
> > projects - depending on what OS.o process is ultimately decided on).
> 
> This isn''t the rationale that was provided to the OGB.  The
rationale
> provided looks more like this:
> 
>   http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ogb-discuss/2007-August/002239.html
> 
> and this:
> 
>   http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ogb-discuss/2007-August/002250.html
> 
> That is, LDoms are special.  We were told rather directly that there
> was no point in having a Virtualization community because there was
> _NOTHING_ that could be shared between these projects -- no high level
> management or coordination, no tools support, and no joint projects.
> 
> If that''s not true, then it certainly comes as news to me.
It''s certainly not true.  Representatives of all of these teams
recently
spent several days in a woefully overcrowded room hashing out exactly where
these areas of overlap are.  If anything, the zones project was the odd man
out, since they virtualize at a different level of the stack than Xen and
LDoms.

Nils

Nils Nieuwejaar writes:
> It''s certainly not true.
I didn''t really think it was, but that''s the basis for the OGB
approval of the new LDoms community.
>  Representatives of all of these teams recently
> spent several days in a woefully overcrowded room hashing out exactly where
> these areas of overlap are.  If anything, the zones project was the odd man
> out, since they virtualize at a different level of the stack than Xen and
> LDoms.
Even with Zones, I''d expect software packaging, install, and
maintenance issues to be shared (at least in part) with the other
groups.

-- 
James Carlson, Solaris Networking              <james.d.carlson@sun.com>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive         71.232W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.496N   Fax +1 781 442 1677