On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 02:18:01PM +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: > On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 12:54:31PM +0300, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote: > > > > What about idea not to *add* pae versions of xen kernels, but to *replace* > > non-pae versions with pae versions? > > > > Rationale: > > > > - not increase in archive size or linux-2.6 package build time, > > > > - this will improve compatimility with other distros (consider scenario > > when running FC or RHEL in domU; these distros do ship only pae xen > > kernels, according to > > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-xen-devel/2006-December/000998.html) > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraXenQuickstartFC6 > > "Any x86_64, or ia64 CPU is supported for running para-virtualized guests. > To run i386 guests requires a CPU with the PAE extension." > > So FC6 is PAE only, and latest update to FC5 also switched to PAE xen > kernel. > > RHEL5 will be PAE only too. > > I don't know what Suse uses.. >
https://www.redhat.com/archives/rhelv5-beta-list/2006-December/msg00068.html "the decision to only support PAE capable hosts was made at the end of the FC5 cycle. The majority (if not all) of server in customer datacenters/environments are PAE capable today and the only edge case for non-PAE support would have been "older" laptops which do not yet have PAE capable processors. It also would have been an additional burden for QA/QE to test/certify older non-PAE capable servers. As the use case for Xen is certainly geared towards servers and not laptops this made a lot of sense." -- Pasi ^ . . Linux / - \ Choice.of.the .Next.Generation.
