openstack team mailing list archive

[Donal Lafferty <donal.lafferty@xxxxxxxxxx>]

The key in my email was to ask whether MIME-like specialisations were appropriate either for combining characteristics of an image into a single property.  

E.g. <container_type>/<image_type>.  The example I provided was <image_type>/<vendor-specific-format>

That second example came from observing that a VHD produced by VHDTOOL.exe as posted on MSDN produced a file that could not be understood by XenServer.  In contrast, Ken Bell's 'DiscUtils' as posted on Codeplex produced a VHD that worked fine.  When I spoke to Ken, he mentioned he'd noticed that VHDTOOL.exe generated a slightly different format.  Now, I doubt Microsoft would host a tool that didn’t support their format.  Therefore, there seems to be a difference of opinion as to what constitutes a VHD.

DL
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Soren Hansen [mailto:soren@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 02 December 2011 10:16
> To: Donal Lafferty
> Cc: Jay Pipes; openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Openstack] [GLANCE] Proposal: Combine the "container_format"
> and "disk_format" fields in 2.0 Images API
> 
> 2011/12/2 Donal Lafferty <donal.lafferty@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> > During October I noticed that Microsoft's vhdtool.exe creates VHDs that
> XenServer can't understand.  Boy was that painful.
> > The underlying problem is that some vhd's should be described as VM specific.
> 
> Can you elaborate on this, please? I don't think I understand what "VM specific"
> means.
> 
> --
> Soren Hansen        | http://linux2go.dk/ Ubuntu Developer    |
> http://www.ubuntu.com/ OpenStack Developer | http://www.openstack.org/