cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Amogh Vasekar <amogh.vase...@citrix.com>
Subject Re: Hypervisor version and XenServer
Date Thu, 24 Apr 2014 17:47:22 GMT
I can talk for GuestOSMapping response - HYPERVISOR_VERSION mimics the
behavior in HypervisorCapabilities.

Thanks,
Amogh

On 4/24/14 5:32 AM, "Tim Mackey" <tmackey@gmail.com> wrote:

>It's an ApiConstant (ApiConstants.HYPERVISOR_VERSION), and is exposed in a
>number of places such as the HostForMigration, HypervisorCapabilities and
>GuestOSMapping responses.  It's set for XenServer in the
>XcpServerDiscoverer, and for XenServer 6.2 it really says the hypervisor
>version is 4.1.5, not 6.2.0.  Once I've gotten everything working in the
>Xen->XenServer work, I'll look a bit deeper into how we use it internally
>(if at all).
>
>-tim
>
>
>On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Yitao Jiang <willierjyt@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> cloud.host table contains hypervisor_version column.
>> Hopes can help.
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Thanks,
>> Yitao
>> jiangyt.github.io
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Chiradeep Vittal <
>> Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Where is this HYPERVISOR_VERSION? In the code? Docs?
>> >
>> > From: Tim Mackey <tmackey@gmail.com<mailto:tmackey@gmail.com>>
>> > Reply-To: 
>>"dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>"
>> <
>> > dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>>
>> > Date: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 at 2:50 PM
>> > To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>" <
>> > dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>>
>> > Subject: Hypervisor version and XenServer
>> >
>> > I'm running through some bugs with my Xen->XenServer work and just ran
>> > across the HYPERVISOR_VERSION being the Xen version and not the
>>XenServer
>> > version.  Does anyone know why that is?  Given that feature/function
>>in
>> > XenServer is tied to the XenServer version, I see using the Xen
>>version
>> as
>> > a bug waiting to bite us.  Since I don't want to break API
>>compatability,
>> > I'm not inclined to change it for this work, but do wonder if we
>> shouldn't
>> > change it when the API revs next.
>> >
>> > Thoughts?
>> >
>> > -tim
>> >
>> >
>>


Mime
View raw message