[et-mgmt-tools] HVM installs are broken?
Daniel P. Berrange
berrange at redhat.com
Wed Dec 3 16:50:36 UTC 2008
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 04:37:28PM +0000, John Levon wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 09:49:50AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > virt-install -d -n domu-225 -r 1024 --hvm --vnc -f
> > > /export/guests/2008.11/root.img --os-type=windows -l
> > > /net/heaped/export/netimage/windows/xp.iso
> > >
> > > Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:36:58 DEBUG Using libvirt URI connect 'xen'
> > > Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:36:58 DEBUG Requesting virt method 'hvm'
> > > Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:36:58 DEBUG Received virt method 'hvm'
> > > ...
> > > Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:36:58 DEBUG Attempting to detect distro:
> > > ...
> > > Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:36:58 DEBUG Cleaning up mount at
> > > /var/lib/xen/virtinstmnt.REF5Hf
> > > Could not find an installable distribution at '/net/heaped/export/netimage/windows/xp.iso'
> > >
> > > Looks like it's no longer skipping the PV install detection for HVM
> > > guests. Am I missing something?
> > The -l / --location PATH|URL arg will do a kernel+initrd based install
> > for either HVM or Paravirt - latest Xen support kernel+initrd boot
> > of Linux HVM guests, as does KVM.
> This is a regression over previous releases, where -l works for both.
> (And that was a good fix, since people *always* accidentally use -l
> instead of -c and get very confused. Can it be fixed?
That was a bug in a previous release. We need to have distinct meaning
for them, because many distros images & hypervisors will support both
kernel+initrd and BIOS based provisioning, so we need to be able to
distinguish between them.
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|
More information about the et-mgmt-tools