But xen-tools have be removed from Squeeze, so I suppose it will be more
difficult to create new
installations (require much more work to replace the xen-create-image script).
Well, I've been maintaining dtc-xen since Lenny, and it does even more than
xen-tools.
DTC-Xen is in Squeeze and I
On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 17:58 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
But xen-tools have be removed from Squeeze, so I suppose it will be more
difficult to create new
installations (require much more work to replace the xen-create-image
script).
Well, I've been maintaining dtc-xen since Lenny, and
Ben Hutchings wrote:
Xen might be doing well in some distributions but in lenny it has been a
disaster. We have been stuck with a dead-end branch that no-one has the
time and knowledge to fix. I believe squeeze will be better due to the
common base kernel version and some support from
John Goerzen, le Wed 24 Mar 2010 09:19:24 -0500, a écrit :
I've just noticed that HVM guests (such as Windows) are broken in Xen in
squeeze due to the lack of qemu-dm (see #562703). Any word on plans for
that?
Finding somebody that has the time to mentor an upload for Thomas
Goirand, see
- Original message -
Ben Hutchings wrote:
Xen might be doing well in some distributions but in lenny it has been a
disaster. We have been stuck with a dead-end branch that no-one has the
time and knowledge to fix. I believe squeeze will be better due to the
common base kernel
Hi,
- Thomas Goirand tho...@gplhost.com wrote:
But xen-tools have be removed from Squeeze, so I suppose it will be
more difficult to create new
installations (require much more work to replace the
xen-create-image script).
Well, I've been maintaining dtc-xen since Lenny, and it does
On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 20:18 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
Hmm, looks like http://appliancekit.systeminplace.net/ (referenced from
your ITP) is gone (To change this page, upload your website into the
public_html directory)
which I would have realised was a known issue if I'd read the ITP a bit
Hello,
- Ian Campbell i...@hellion.org.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 11:29 +0100, Olivier Bonvalet wrote:
But xen-tools have be removed from Squeeze, so I suppose it will be
more difficult to create new installations (require much more work
to
replace the xen-create-image
- Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 17:58 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
But xen-tools have be removed from Squeeze, so I suppose it will
be more difficult to create new
installations (require much more work to replace the
xen-create-image script).
On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 23:05 +0300, William Pitcock wrote:
Hello,
- Ian Campbell i...@hellion.org.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 11:29 +0100, Olivier Bonvalet wrote:
But xen-tools have be removed from Squeeze, so I suppose it will be
more difficult to create new
On 24.03.2010 20:22, Thomas Goirand wrote:
- Original message -
Ben Hutchings wrote:
Xen might be doing well in some distributions but in lenny it has been a
disaster. We have been stuck with a dead-end branch that no-one has the
time and knowledge to fix. I believe squeeze will be
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 03:22:16AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
It's been 3 months that I am searching for a sponsor for this one:
Well, the mails don't looked like you wanted that.
http://ftparchive.gplhost.com/debian/pool/lenny/main/x/xen-qemu-dm-3.4/xen-qemu-dm-3.4_3.4.2-1.dsc
Which is
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:25:14PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
I did speak with Christian Motschke, who did test the package. I'll look
at the package this weekend, and sponsor it if nobody else did sponsor it
until then.
Please don't. He did not come back to the Xen team after the
On Sat, 27.02.2010 at 21:59:39 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no wrote:
]] Faidon Liambotis
| Beyond that, I've also seen filesystem corruption when using live
| migration and the filesystem cache hasn't been disabled -- an almost
| undocumented directive of libvirt's XML.
|
| All in
Toni Mueller wrote:
On Sat, 27.02.2010 at 21:59:39 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no wrote:
]] Faidon Liambotis
| Beyond that, I've also seen filesystem corruption when using live
| migration and the filesystem cache hasn't been disabled -- an almost
| undocumented directive of
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 01:34:24PM +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 07:01:59AM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 04:53:56PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Hi folks,
There was a thread here a little while back about the status of Xen in
future
Hi,
Olivier Bonvalet wrote:
But xen-tools have be removed from Squeeze, so I suppose it will be more
difficult to create new installations (require much more work to replace
the xen-create-image script).
I took over upstream developement from Steve and I'm working on
reintroduction of
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 11:29 +0100, Olivier Bonvalet wrote:
But xen-tools have be removed from Squeeze, so I suppose it will be
more difficult to create new installations (require much more work to
replace the xen-create-image script).
Squeeze (32- and 64-bit) and Lenny (32-bit only) both
On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 01:03 +0300, William Pitcock wrote:
- Josip Rodin j...@entuzijast.net wrote:
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 01:23:07AM +0300, William Pitcock wrote:
I am looking into packaging xenner already as a backup plan if I
cannot
manage to fix some major reentrancy problems
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 07:01:59AM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 04:53:56PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Hi folks,
There was a thread here a little while back about the status of Xen in
future Debian releases. It left me rather confused, and I'm hoping to
find
* Goswin von Brederlow goswin-...@web.de [2010-02-26 11:19]:
KVM is shaping up well and appears to be very well supported by Red Hat.
But still slower and less secure due to qemu.
Can you back that statement with numbers? My subjective impression is
that kvm with libvirt is not slower than
Martin Wuertele wrote:
* Goswin von Brederlow goswin-...@web.de [2010-02-26 11:19]:
KVM is shaping up well and appears to be very well supported by Red Hat.
But still slower and less secure due to qemu.
Can you back that statement with numbers? My subjective impression is
that kvm with
Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Feb 26, Luca Capello l...@pca.it wrote:
5) Do we recommend that new installations of lenny or of squeeze avoid
Xen for ease of upgrading to squeeze+1? If so, what should they use?
It depends. KVM in lenny is buggy and lacks important features. While it
works fine for
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:35:30AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
On 26 February 2010 09:53, John Goerzen jgoer...@complete.org wrote:
According to http://wiki.debian.org/SystemVirtualization :
Qemu and KVM - Mostly used on Desktops/Laptops
VirtualBox - Mostly used on Desktops/Laptops
Xen
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 01:23:07AM +0300, William Pitcock wrote:
I am looking into packaging xenner already as a backup plan if I cannot
manage to fix some major reentrancy problems in the Xen dom0 code
(Xensource 2.6.18 patches, the pvops stuff has it's own share of problems
and needs more
* John Goerzen jgoer...@complete.org [2010-02-27 17:09]:
How does libvirt impact performance?
Guess I cunfused libvirt with virtio.
Regards, Martin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:18:41AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Xen - Provides para-virtualization and full-virtualization. Mostly used
on servers. Will be abandoned after squeeze.
I think that the problem here is that Xen isn't mainstream in the
kernel. It takes a long time for a
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:35:36AM +, Mark Brown wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:18:41AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
According to the wiki the plan is to have pv-ops merge into vanilla with
2.6.34.
I just took a quick look at linux-next (which *should* have everything
for
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:06:57AM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Marco d'Itri, le Fri 26 Feb 2010 02:38:33 +0100, a écrit :
On Feb 25, John Goerzen jgoer...@complete.org wrote:
3a) What about Linux virtualization on servers that lack hardware
virtualization support, which Xen supports but
]] Faidon Liambotis
| Beyond that, I've also seen filesystem corruption when using live
| migration and the filesystem cache hasn't been disabled -- an almost
| undocumented directive of libvirt's XML.
|
| All in all, I'm wondering how people can call this stable.
I would guess at most people
- Josip Rodin j...@entuzijast.net wrote:
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 01:23:07AM +0300, William Pitcock wrote:
I am looking into packaging xenner already as a backup plan if I
cannot
manage to fix some major reentrancy problems in the Xen dom0 code
(Xensource 2.6.18 patches, the pvops
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 01:03:46AM +0300, William Pitcock wrote:
There are also no pvops dom0 kernel packages shipped by Debian yet, at
least through official channels.
While you are correct that pvops is the future, right now it's no better
reliability-wise then the 2.6.18 xensource
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 04:53:56PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Xen - Provides para-virtualization and full-virtualization. Mostly used
on servers. Will be abandoned after squeeze.
The Xen page on the wiki makes no mention of this.
Well, I don't know where this conclusion comes from. But usually
Marco d'Itri, le Fri 26 Feb 2010 02:38:33 +0100, a écrit :
On Feb 25, John Goerzen jgoer...@complete.org wrote:
3a) What about Linux virtualization on servers that lack hardware
virtualization support, which Xen supports but KVM doesn't?
Tough luck.
6) Are we communicating this to Debian
Andrew M.A. Cater amaca...@galactic.demon.co.uk writes:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 04:53:56PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Hi folks,
There was a thread here a little while back about the status of Xen in
future Debian releases. It left me rather confused, and I'm hoping to
find some answers
Hi,
1) in Lenny I use the Xen hypervisor 3.4 from Squeeze, so it works.
The main problem is that the linux dom0 patch is not (yet) upstream, and
Debian can't really maintain it.
But we hope, it will be accepted upstream, a lot of works have be done.
As you can see on the Xen wiki
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:18:41AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
But the pv-ops xen kernel is shaping up well and that is what Bastian
Banks is working on. They have a proper upstream and follow the latest
vanilla kernel well enough. According to the wiki the plan is to have
pv-ops merge
On Feb 26, Petter Reinholdtsen p...@hungry.com wrote:
I understand the pain of maintaining Xen, but believe it is bad idea
to defend replacing it with kvm by claiming those needing
virtualization and not having servers with hardware support are few
and should just get new servers.
Obviously
On 2010-02-26, Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it wrote:
On Feb 26, Petter Reinholdtsen p...@hungry.com wrote:
I understand the pain of maintaining Xen, but believe it is bad idea
to defend replacing it with kvm by claiming those needing
virtualization and not having servers with hardware support are
On Feb 26, Philipp Kern tr...@philkern.de wrote:
Wow, logic. Because they don't have monetary resources to buy new
servers they have a vast amount of time instead?
Why should they expect other people to solve their problems for them?
Free software is not about other people working in your
Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
I understand the pain of maintaining Xen, but believe it is bad idea
to defend replacing it with kvm by claiming those needing
virtualization and not having servers with hardware support are few
and should just get new servers.
Agreed. At work, we made a major
Bastian Blank wrote:
Did we ever had something preferred?
Not officially, but there were clearly better solutions for different
situations.
-- John
Bastian
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 11:58 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Feb 26, Petter Reinholdtsen p...@hungry.com wrote:
I understand the pain of maintaining Xen, but believe it is bad idea
to defend replacing it with kvm by claiming those needing
virtualization and not having servers with hardware
Hi there!
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 02:38:33 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Feb 25, John Goerzen jgoer...@complete.org wrote:
5) Do we recommend that new installations of lenny or of squeeze avoid
Xen for ease of upgrading to squeeze+1? If so, what should they use?
It depends. KVM in lenny is buggy
On Feb 26, Luca Capello l...@pca.it wrote:
5) Do we recommend that new installations of lenny or of squeeze avoid
Xen for ease of upgrading to squeeze+1? If so, what should they use?
It depends. KVM in lenny is buggy and lacks important features. While it
works fine for development and
First of all, I'd like to say a big THANKS to all the people maintaining Xen
within (in of course also outside) Debian; you really saved us lots of money and
energy (which is both, electrical and that personal one).
[...]
4) What will be our preferred server virtualization option for
Thank you for the conversation on this. I would like to summarize what
people have been saying -- it seems there is still a lot of disagreement
about things out there yet, and I'm not entirely certain about things
yet, but this has been helpful.
I'll include my original email with comments from
Hi,
- Michael Tautschnig m...@debian.org wrote:
First of all, I'd like to say a big THANKS to all the people
maintaining Xen
within (in of course also outside) Debian; you really saved us lots of
money and
energy (which is both, electrical and that personal one).
[...]
4)
Hi folks,
There was a thread here a little while back about the status of Xen in
future Debian releases. It left me rather confused, and I'm hoping to
find some answers (which I will then happily document in the wiki).
According to http://wiki.debian.org/SystemVirtualization :
Qemu and KVM -
On 26 February 2010 09:53, John Goerzen jgoer...@complete.org wrote:
According to http://wiki.debian.org/SystemVirtualization :
Qemu and KVM - Mostly used on Desktops/Laptops
VirtualBox - Mostly used on Desktops/Laptops
Xen - Provides para-virtualization and full-virtualization. Mostly used
On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 16:53 -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Hi folks,
There was a thread here a little while back about the status of Xen in
future Debian releases. It left me rather confused, and I'm hoping to
find some answers (which I will then happily document in the wiki).
You're asking on
On Feb 25, John Goerzen jgoer...@complete.org wrote:
3) What will be our preferred Linux server virtualization option after
squeeze? Are we confident enough in the stability and performance of
KVM to call it such? (Last I checked, its paravirt support was of
Yes.
rather iffy stability and
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 04:53:56PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Hi folks,
There was a thread here a little while back about the status of Xen in
future Debian releases. It left me rather confused, and I'm hoping to
find some answers (which I will then happily document in the wiki).
[Andrew M.A. Cater]
Which servers that lack hardware virtualisation support - pretty
much everything made in the last two or three years has it. For
servers, specifically, the likelihood is that - Lenny has a 2 year
life + 1 year, Squeeze has ? year life + 1 year - by the time you
get to
54 matches
Mail list logo
