incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?
Date Thu, 18 Oct 2012 19:54:11 GMT
Is there anyone actually using OVM that is involved here on the dev
list? The reason I ask is because I initially got involved with
cloudstack development because CLVM was being dropped, and I needed
it. If there are resources among Citrix or elsewhere to work on OVM
that's great, then perhaps we can commit to having it ready for the
first point release, and current OVM customers can wait. But to some
extent it seems like development of features should be driven or
helped along by a portion of those who use them. Even if it's just an
admin watching the dev list and saying "hey, we use and need this". If
there isn't a lot of that, then support for those features are at the
mercy of whomever cares to take it up.

I'm not really familiar with the new/old OVM versions, however if I
were an OVM user I wouldn't be horribly upset if I simply had to wait
for a point release. Now dropping it altogether is a different story.
I would think at the very least the old version of OVM should be
supported, with a notice in the 4.0 notes that it's legacy and will
not be updated in future releases. The cloudstack sort of owes them
that much for taking on support in the first place, IMO.  Supporting
the new version is a renewal of future commitment, whereas legacy
supprt is just a gesture to those with existing deployments.


On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jzb@zonker.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:10:35AM -0700, Kevin Kluge wrote:
>> There's nothing in CloudStack to track that so we cannot be definitive.
>> But, it can't be many.  We have seen few questions about its usage
>> and integration.  And OVM's share of the server virtualization market
>> is quite low.   Given limited user impact, if this is really the only
>> problem I'd defer the fix.
>
> The thing is, even if it's a small percentage of users that have
> deployed CloudStack + OVM, we'd be disappointing the shops that have
> deployed CloudStack + OVM 100%.
>
> If we were discussing why we should phase out support for OVM, it'd be
> one thing - but what seems to be on the table right now is letting
> 4.0.0-incubating out the door with no guarantee that we'll address OVM
> support in a timely fashion after, if at all.
>
> If the project is going to phase something out, we need to say so
> clearly and loudly ahead of time so interested parties have the
> opportunity to get involved and take over the feature. If nobody does,
> that's fine - but right now I'm concerned we're going to be letting down
> the users who have adopted CloudStack with OVM who had a reasonable
> expectation that the 4.0.0-incubating release would include OVM support.
>
> Best,
>
> Joe
> --
> Joe Brockmeier
> Twitter: @jzb
> http://dissociatedpress.net/

Mime
View raw message