From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: Re: Xen 4.4 development update Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 08:24:39 +0100 Message-ID: <524008D702000078000F5582@nat28.tlf.novell.com> References: <20130920155737.GB16734@aepfle.de> <523C7213.7060606@eu.citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <523C7213.7060606@eu.citrix.com> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Olaf Hering , George Dunlap Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >>> On 20.09.13 at 18:04, George Dunlap wrote: > On 20/09/13 16:57, Olaf Hering wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 16, George Dunlap wrote: >> >>> * xend still in tree >>> - xl list -l on a dom0-only system >>> - xl list -l doesn't contain tty console port >>> - Alternate transport support for migration >> libxl has no pvscsi support. This is listed as "SCSI LUN/Host >> passthrough (PVSCSI)" in the page below. > > >> >> Is PVUSB already handled by libxl? >> >> http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/XL_vs_Xend_Feature_Comparison > > Are you personally using PVSCSI, and/or pvusb, and/or do you know any > large downstreams and/or user bases that depend on them? We certainly have customers using pvSCSI (for some I perhaps should say "would like to", as so far they can't due to limitations of the protocol). > There was never any intention of making xl have every single feature of > xend; only the features that people cared enough about to argue for / > implement themselves. The list above was generated from a recent > discussion of why Oracle and Amazon object to removing xend at this > time. If these is an important feature to you, the time to say > something about it was 1 year ago. I'm pretty certain the question of both pvSCSI and pvUSB not being there in xl was raised before. And no, I don't agree with your initial statement. The outcome of the most recent community call was "make all regressions of xl vs xm a blocker for 4.4". Of course I don't read this to imply features no-one uses, but I certainly read this to cover features that some people use, even if they're not a majority. And the use case for pvSCSI is pretty obvious: Without it, in order to do e.g. a tape backup, you have to PCI-pass-through a whole HBA to a guest instead of just the single SCSI tape device that you need the guest to have access to. Jan