Xen devel - Apr 2005 - RE: Disk naming (Was Re: [PATCH] Guestbootloadersupport [1/2])

> Keeping it working in the short-term while people want to do 
> this might be reasonable, but if they''re doing the Right (tm) 
> thing and mounting by label or uuid, it doesn''t matter what 
> the device is.  And I think that medium term, there are going 
> to be plenty of other changes needed for going from a native 
> system to an unprivileged guests.  
You''d be surprised -- I do this quite frequently, and although you get
a
lot of grumbles during the boot scripts, it does just work.
> http://www.lanana.org/docs/device-list/instructions.txt has 
> the instructions.  I can volunteer to send the information 
> upstream.  It looks like using xd is already going to be a 
> namespace conflict with the ooollldddd IDE devices, though.  
> What if we go with vbd for the device names?  Then the questions are
Is the fact that it''s 3 chars rather than 2 going to cause problems?
vda1 ?
> a) How many minors per disk device?  This dictates number of 
> partitions.
> It''s probably reasonable to just do 15 like SCSI (especially 
> as more can then be handled dynamically for 2.6)
15 sounds fine.
> b) How many vbds do we want to have static majors for?  16 is 
> probably reasonable and this then means that we only take up 
> a single block minor.
Yep.


Ian

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 23:02 +0100, Ian Pratt wrote:
> > http://www.lanana.org/docs/device-list/instructions.txt has 
> > the instructions.  I can volunteer to send the information 
> > upstream.  It looks like using xd is already going to be a 
> > namespace conflict with the ooollldddd IDE devices, though.  
> > What if we go with vbd for the device names?  Then the questions are
> 
> Is the fact that it''s 3 chars rather than 2 going to cause
problems?
> vda1 ?
Nah, there''s plenty that are longer.  Compaq SmartArray stuff
is /dev/cciss/c0d0p1 :)

I''ll send off the request to lanana later this evening

Jeremy


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Rumor has it that on Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:02:11PM +0100 Ian Pratt
said:
> > Keeping it working in the short-term while people want to do 
> > this might be reasonable, but if they''re doing the Right (tm)
> > thing and mounting by label or uuid, it doesn''t matter what 
> > the device is.  And I think that medium term, there are going 
> > to be plenty of other changes needed for going from a native 
> > system to an unprivileged guests.  
Be careful with mount by label in a virtualized environment. When it 
becomes easy to move disks from one system to another labels can be a 
real pain.

How would uuid work for the current block devices in guests?

Cheers,
Phil



-- 
Philip R. Auld, Ph.D.  	        	       Egenera, Inc.    
Software Architect                            165 Forest St.
(508) 858-2628                            Marlboro, MA 01752

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel