> As I understand it, 2.6.39uek = 3.0.16. The versioning is for their
> tool compatibility, even though it should be 2.6.40.16 under the
> commonly accepted versioning for 2.6.x IIRC. And allegedly Xen went
> upstream early in 3.x. Was it 3.0.3? Or was that 3.3?
I think it was in 3.0. But it lacked some backend drivers (xenblk backend).
I've solved compiling 3.2.28 with the spec from kernel-ml (thanks guys) and
changing kernel config file to include xen backend drivers.
I still missing some minor issues like renaming it to 2.6.42 so that it
remains in 2.6 namespace but bottom line is that everything works now (TM)
> In any case, if you're looking for features, why don't you consider
> Fedora? If you're cycling updates in every year or quicker, which
> sounds like the case, it makes far more sense. Fedora is quite
> stable, but just rebases far more, instead of backporting.
>
> If it's just a virtualization platform, and not a run-time platform
> for applications, it completely makes far more sense to consider
> Fedora if you're focused on features. They already do the integration
> testing for you. Xen dom0 was added back to Fedora as of Fedora 16.
> [1]
Yes, we've considered that but with fedora we only have security updates for 2
releases back while EL has a few years. Also our hypervisor/dom0 linux is
installed in a server and an upgrade between major fedora releases could be
dangerous/problematic.
To solve this issue we are probably going the way RHEV and Ovirt are going by
using a squashfs FS that can be swapped with a new one when updates or
upgrades are released. In this scenario we could use Fedora.
I'm still in need of an unionfs that works (in recent kernels) and are stable
(tried unionfs, aufs and still waiting on overlayfs).
Thanks for all the help
Nuno Fernandes
_______________________________________________
rhelv5-list mailing list
rhelv5-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list
