From owner-freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Sun Aug 12 14:59:39 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-virtualization@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A648410731F3 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2018 14:59:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net) Received: from pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D88B8BB65 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2018 14:59:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net) Received: from pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id w7CExUrh032889; Sun, 12 Aug 2018 07:59:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net) Received: (from freebsd-rwg@localhost) by pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id w7CExSWX032888; Sun, 12 Aug 2018 07:59:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" Message-Id: <201808121459.w7CExSWX032888@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> Subject: Re: Curent Centos 7 and bhyve In-Reply-To: <20180812052025.GB73103@admin.sibptus.transneft.ru> To: Victor Sudakov Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2018 07:59:28 -0700 (PDT) CC: Shawn Webb , freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-BeenThere: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of various virtualization techniques FreeBSD supports." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2018 14:59:39 -0000 > Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > > > Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Are there issues with Current CEntos and bhyve? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure there are, please look at > > > > > > > > > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230453 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Booting in UEFI mode works. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This means we need an update to /usr/local/share/examples/vm-bhyve/centos7.conf ? > > > > > > > It says 'loader="grub"' for the present. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have a vm config to boot centos7 in UEFI mode you could share? > > > > > > > > > > > > I just use /usr/share/examples/bhyve/vmrun.sh. I don't use any > > > > > > third-party utility to manage bhyve VMs. vmrun.sh is pretty > > > > > > straight-forward. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for replying. However, I highly recommend vm-bhyve, maybe you > > > > > should give it a try. You will love the ease of VM creation and > > > > > provisioning, network management, ZFS integration (VM snapshots and > > > > > cloning), console and datastore management etc. > > > > > > > > Though it has a lot of features, it also has some short comings, > > > > like you can not spec a vm to be wired in memory, which IMHO is > > > > the only way to insure consistent VM performance. > > > > > > Well, we have "bhyve_options" configuration option in the vm config, > > > why not put "-S" there, is that what you mean by wiring the vm in > > > memory? > > > > I believe that fails as that only adds the -S to bhyve, and > > you must specify it both on bhyveload and bhyve for it to > > work. > > I think it is totally doable becase vm-bhyve is nothing but a suit of > scripts. A PR with a feature request would be appropriate. I made several attempts to contact the author at the email address provided at the git hub while making other bhyve changes to try and coordinate with him. I got no response after 3 attempts, so have stopped trying to contact them. (This was while I was adding the -c cpu topology modifications.) > > What about VM that don't use bhyveload, but some other kind of loader > like grub2-bhyve? I am not sure how vm-bhyve deals with that as I have none of those type VM's. > > > > > > > > > Its artificial restriction of 16 character VM names is also > > > > a fair bit annoying. > > > > > > Maybe. > > > > Maybe? No, factually. I migrated a number of ESXi VM's and > > had to patch vm-bhyve to not have this restriction, so it is > > annoying. > > Did you send your patches upstream? Could not even get an email ack from upstream. -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org