[virt-tools-list] Re: [et-mgmt-tools] RFC: virt-manager: Manager UI rework

[Daniel P. Berrange]

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 05:52:42PM +0200, Dennis J. wrote:
> On 07/24/2009 12:22 AM, Cole Robinson wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >I've been reworking the main manager view in virt-manager. You can check
> >out a screenshot here:
> >
> >http://fedorapeople.org/~crobinso/virt-manager/vmm-manager-1-overview.png
> >
> >The code can be cloned from here:
> >
> >http://fedorapeople.org/~crobinso/virt-manager/virt-manager.manager_ui
> >
> >I've changed the following pieces:
> >
> >- Lower button bar is now a toolbar at the top of the window. I think
> >this is obvious: a toolbar at the top is much more in line with existing
> >UI convention, and is more intuitive.
> >
> >- Dropped the 'View: Active/Inactive' combo box. I don't think anybody
> >was using this option, and it was only taking up space.
> >
> >- Dropped all columns except Name, Status, and Stats. Columns like vcpus
> >and memory progress bar really added no value. Most of these columns
> >were for stats reporting which, while useful, would largely balloon the
> >list (if enabled) to the point of uselessness. If we want good stats
> >comparison, we should have an entire separate screen for this, which
> >could provide many more comparison metrics.
> >
> >- Allow changing what the single graph column is measuring: cpu, disk,
> >or network. This way users can still have an at a glance comparison of
> >the metric of their choice. Screenshot:
> >
> >http://fedorapeople.org/~crobinso/virt-manager/vmm-manager-1-graphs.png
> 
> I don't find it very useful that the VMs are divided according to the VM 
> driver they use. From my perspective I have machines X, Y and Z and most of 
> the time I don't really care if they are Xen, KVM, Qemu, etc. VMs.
> If I have 10 Webservers of which 5 run on Xen and 5 on KVM then I would 
> still like to see them as a group of 10 Webservers rather than being split 
> into two groups according to the driver.

This isn't really dividing up VMs based on driver type. Each grouping
their represents a seperate libvirt connection, which under normal
usage would represent separate host. So the grouping is really just
hosts, and vms on the host.  The mockup here is a little misleading
in that it shows a bunch of libvirt connections on the same host but
with different hypervisors, which is not something you'd ever really
have.

Daniel
-- 
|: 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 :|