On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 08:23:57PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote: > 29.07.2011 18:02, Aaron Toponce wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 12:27:09AM +0200, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote: > >> What virtualisation solutions should be supported? > > > > Open Virtualization Format (OVF) is the only format that should need to be > > supported. VirtualBox, VMWare, RHEV, AbiCloud, Citrix XenConvert, and > > OpenNode all support the format. > > The problem with OVF is that it does not define actual disk image > format, it merely describes the VM for a management layer (like > libvirt), but makes no big effort to standardize disk format. > > So it's basically useless in this context - it's kinda trivial to > provide the management stuff, the more important bit is the disk > content. I wouldn't put it that strong :) While it's true that OVF is 'weak' in respect to disk formats, one can choose and support a few widely-used formats to cover enough space. This is exactly what we're doing now in the Ganeti project - after some consideration, supporting just raw, vmdk and the qcow variants seems to have wide-enough use to cover most interoperability issues. Free tools to convert to/from vhd is what I think is still missing. I think that for Debian's purposes, offering one of the above formats (most likely vmdk) should be good enough, at least for start. regards, iustin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature