atom feed38 messages in org.apache.incubator.cloudstack-devRe: Drop OVM in 4.0?
FromSent OnAttachments
Edison SuOct 17, 2012 11:25 am 
Kelcey Damage (BBITS)Oct 17, 2012 11:27 am 
Frank ZhangOct 17, 2012 11:35 am 
Kelcey Damage (BBITS)Oct 17, 2012 11:37 am 
Edison SuOct 17, 2012 11:37 am 
Kelcey Damage (BBITS)Oct 17, 2012 11:39 am 
David NalleyOct 17, 2012 11:40 am 
Frank ZhangOct 17, 2012 11:47 am 
David NalleyOct 17, 2012 11:51 am 
Sudha PonnagantiOct 17, 2012 11:53 am 
Sudha PonnagantiOct 17, 2012 12:20 pm 
Will ChanOct 17, 2012 1:55 pm 
Kristoffer Sheather - Cloud CentralOct 17, 2012 2:40 pm 
Outback DingoOct 17, 2012 2:42 pm 
Caleb CallOct 17, 2012 3:01 pm 
Kelcey Damage (BBITS)Oct 17, 2012 3:06 pm 
Chiradeep VittalOct 17, 2012 4:50 pm 
David NalleyOct 17, 2012 4:54 pm 
Edison SuOct 17, 2012 4:55 pm 
Chiradeep VittalOct 17, 2012 4:58 pm 
Frank ZhangOct 17, 2012 6:59 pm 
Joe BrockmeierOct 17, 2012 7:30 pm 
Chip ChildersOct 18, 2012 7:11 am 
Will ChanOct 18, 2012 10:01 am 
John KinsellaOct 18, 2012 10:04 am 
Jessica TomechakOct 18, 2012 10:05 am 
Will ChanOct 18, 2012 10:29 am 
Kevin KlugeOct 18, 2012 11:10 am 
Joe BrockmeierOct 18, 2012 12:36 pm 
David NalleyOct 18, 2012 12:47 pm 
Marcus SorensenOct 18, 2012 12:53 pm 
Edison SuOct 18, 2012 1:53 pm 
Joe BrockmeierOct 18, 2012 2:15 pm 
Edison SuOct 18, 2012 2:59 pm 
Chip ChildersOct 18, 2012 3:04 pm 
Joe BrockmeierOct 18, 2012 4:06 pm 
Caleb CallOct 18, 2012 4:55 pm 
Sudha PonnagantiOct 18, 2012 5:43 pm 
Subject:Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?
From:David Nalley (dav@gnsa.us)
Date:Oct 18, 2012 12:47:41 pm
List:org.apache.incubator.cloudstack-dev

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jz@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.

So not to beat the testing drum incessantly, but to slightly diverge from your point: Feature decisions shouldn't be decided by atrophy or entropy. They should be conscious decisions taken by the project. To Will's earlier comment that OVM has apparently been broken since 3.0.0, suggests that our feature list exceeds our testing capability. We've had this same problem with other features back in 2.2.x - they were deemed a good idea for one release, and were not tested again, and proceeded to be unknowingly broken until someone decided to try it and found that it didn't work (the original EIP/ELB implementation). The cost of a feature is larger than initial development.

In the end though, no one has stood up and volunteered to own the OVM hypervisor (even if not for 4.0); unless that changes I assume OVM is dead within CloudStack.

--David