Xen dom0 (core) merged to upstream Linux 2.6.37 and other new features
Hello, People here might be interested to know that Xen pvops dom0 core was merged to upstream Linux kernel during the 2.6.37 merge window! This has been in the works for a long time, so it's good news. Note that this is the core/initial merge, there's more upstreaming needed to get for example the Xen dom0 backend drivers merged to be able to run other domains using the upstream kernel. Xen developers are working on upstreaming more of the missing bits in the next Linux versions. Recently in addition to the Xen dom0 bits there has been other upstreamed features aswell: - Xen PV-on-HVM drivers for fully virtualized (HVM) Linux guests in 2.6.36, and optimizations for the drivers in 2.6.37. - Xen PCI front driver in Linux 2.6.37 for PCI passthru to Xen PV guests (works also with hardware where VT-d/IOMMU is not available). There will also be a git kernel tree based on 2.6.37 with the backend drivers and other not-yet-upstreamed patches included. -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101030130735.gu2...@reaktio.net
Re: Xen for Squeeze, 3.4 or 4.0
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 11:47:49PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Bastian Blank dijo [Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 05:54:28PM +0200]: > > Hi folks > > > > I'm currently thinking about which version of Xen supporting in Squeeze. > > There are two possibilities: 3.4 and 4.0. 3.4 is currently in testing > > and unstable, 4.0 is in experimental. > > Are both releases supporting running as Dom0 and DomU? I understood > there were still integration problems with upstream (Linux). > Xen here refers to the *hypervisor* itself (xen.gz). In addition to the hypervisor you also need a separate dom0 Linux kernel for the host, and domU kernels for PV guests. Xen dom0 Linux kernel for Squeeze will be based on (afaik) upstream long-term maintained xen/stable-2.6.32.x branch from xen.git kernel repository. -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100614075716.ga17...@reaktio.net
Re: [Pkg-xen-devel] [RESENT] Re: Xen for Squeeze, 3.4 or 4.0
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 07:33:58AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > ?ukasz Ole? wrote: > > 2010/6/10 Bastian Blank : > >>> My personal preference would be to go with 4.0. > > > > I completely agree. Probably more people will use pvops kernel with > > 4.0 instead 3.4, so hopefully it will be better tested. > > Hi Bastian, > > I have been running Xen 4.0.0 on my laptop since you made the Debian > package, and there wasn't a single glitch (apart maybe the hibernate > function which I don't really care about). Using an old version of Xen > that already receives less attention from upstream isn't a bright idea. > I believe that 4.0.1 will soon be released, which has many fixes. > There's lots of new interesting features in 4.x too (like blktap2, which > I believe you could re-add in the Debian package as the issue with > OpenSSL was only the md5 thing, I suppose you saw it). My vote goes for > 4.0.x. > I'd vote for 4.0.x too. 4.0.1 should be out this month. Xen 4.0 is the correct hypervisor to use with pvops dom0 kernels.. there has been doubts if 3.4 series has all the required tweaks for pvops dom0. -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100611065558.go17...@reaktio.net
Re: [Pkg-xen-devel] [RESENT] Re: Xen for Squeeze, 3.4 or 4.0
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 09:55:58AM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: > On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 07:33:58AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > ?ukasz Ole? wrote: > > > 2010/6/10 Bastian Blank : > > >>> My personal preference would be to go with 4.0. > > > > > > I completely agree. Probably more people will use pvops kernel with > > > 4.0 instead 3.4, so hopefully it will be better tested. > > > > Hi Bastian, > > > > I have been running Xen 4.0.0 on my laptop since you made the Debian > > package, and there wasn't a single glitch (apart maybe the hibernate > > function which I don't really care about). Using an old version of Xen > > that already receives less attention from upstream isn't a bright idea. > > I believe that 4.0.1 will soon be released, which has many fixes. > > There's lots of new interesting features in 4.x too (like blktap2, which > > I believe you could re-add in the Debian package as the issue with > > OpenSSL was only the md5 thing, I suppose you saw it). My vote goes for > > 4.0.x. > > > > I'd vote for 4.0.x too. > 4.0.1 should be out this month. > > Xen 4.0 is the correct hypervisor to use with pvops dom0 kernels.. > there has been doubts if 3.4 series has all the required tweaks for pvops > dom0. > Oh, and Novell SLES11 SP1 is shipping Xen 4.0 hypervisor, so that might help if there are bugs to debug/patch.. (They're not shipping a pvops dom0 kernel thought, their 2.6.32 dom0 kernel is the xenlinux variant based on their forward-ported patches). -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100611065957.gq17...@reaktio.net
Re: [Pkg-xen-devel] [RESENT] Re: Xen for Squeeze, 3.4 or 4.0
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:23:04PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote: > On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Bastian Blank wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 05:54:28PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > > > I'm currently thinking about which version of Xen supporting in Squeeze. > > > There are two possibilities: 3.4 and 4.0. 3.4 is currently in testing > > > and unstable, 4.0 is in experimental. > > > > > > Xen 3.4 > > > === > > > Pros > > > - Proofed to be stable > > Not on my machines it hasn't. One i386 server which ran Lenny/Xen for ages > without problems (since before Lenny was released) is now running Xen 3.4 > from > Unstable and it's not going particularly well. The other day it was in a > cycle of booting and crashing when loading 2.6.32, I booted 2.6.26 and then > before the init scripts finished I rebooted with 2.6.32 and it worked. > > Different machines require different amounts of memory reserved for Dom0 for > unknown reasons. > > A couple of other machines which according to the Xen web site have suitable > CPUs won't boot the Xen kernels that are currently in Unstable. > > It just seems flakey to me. > > > > Cons > > > - NUMA-mode only opt-in, no infos about stability > > > - Fails on several modern machines because of IO-APIC problems > > It fails on plenty of i386 machines (P3 class) for me. > > > > Xen 4.0 > > > === > > > Pros > > > - NUMA > > > - More tested with the Kernel in Squeeze > > > Cons > > > - Quite new > > > > > > My personal preference would be to go with 4.0. > > Based on my experience with Xen I think that we should have both. Then if > one > doesn't work we can try the other. > > My impression of Xen stability is that trying two different versions and > hoping that one will work is a good strategy for any given server. > > Bastian, thanks a lot for all your great work on this, it's very important to > me and to lots of other people! > > But through no fault of anyone in the Debian project I expect that an ideal > result of one version that works well for almost everyone can't be achieved. > > > PS It would be nice if we could get Grub2 updated to boot Xen kernels. My > SE > Linux Play Machine is offline right now because I messed up the Grub2 > configuration so badly that it won't even give me a boot menu. > I guess you need the dummy=dummy hack as described in here: http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenCommonProblems -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100611065715.gp17...@reaktio.net
Re: Xen support on Squeeze
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 11:00:50AM -0400, micah anderson wrote: > On 2010-04-06, micah anderson wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 03:40:40PM -0400, Micah Anderson wrote: > > > "Nikita V. Youshchenko" writes: > > > > > > >> We have had to carry that patch without any upstream support (or > > > >> sharing > > > >> with Novell, which eventually released SLES 11 with 2.6.27). As a > > > >> result, the xen-flavour kernels for lenny are very buggy, particularly > > > >> for domains with multiple vCPUs (though that *may* be fixed now). > > > > > > > > Unfortunately it is not fixed. > > > > > > > > We here once migrated to xen and now rely on it, and that gives lots of > > > > frustration. For any loaded domain we still have to run etch kernel, > > > > because lenny kernel constantly crashes after several days of heavy > > > > load. > > > > Dom0's run lenny kernel - and with a fix for #542250 they don't crash, > > > > but > > > > those are almost unloaded. > > > > > > I was having problems with multiple vCPUs also, under moderate load I > > > would regularly get crashes. I reported my findings in #504805. I > > > swapped out machines, didn't work. When the fix for the xen_spin_wait() > > > came out, I eagerly switched to that, but it didn't fix my problem. I > > > even tried my hardest to switch to the latest upstream Xen kernel to see > > > if that would fix things, but it was way too unstable and I couldn't get > > > it to work at all. > > > > > > > What do you exactly mean with the 'upstream Xen kernel' ? > > The latest xen-kernel, not from Debian. There are a number of them, the > Novell/OpenSuse forward-port of the old-style xenlinux patches, and the > pvops dom0 git tree. The pvops one was the one I was trying to get > working since the other versions of the kernel aren't receiving any > attention and all dev is happening in the pvops. > Novell is actively developing their SLES11 2.6.27 kernel-xen, and upcoming SLES11 SP1 will have 2.6.32 kernel-xen. > > > > Eventually I stumbled on a way to keep my machines from restarting, its > > > not a great solution, but it stops me from having to deal with the > > > failure on a daily basis. I think that anyone else who is having this > > > problem can do this and it will work. Obviously this is not the right > > > solution, but it works until we can get a fix. > > > > > > First I made sure this was set: > > > > > > /etc/xen/xend-config.sxp: (dom0-cpus 0) > > > > > > Then I pinned individual physical CPUs to specific domU's, once pinned, > > > the problem stops. > > > > > > > vcpu pinning is not required for a properly working kernel.. > > It shouldn't be, I agree... but it seems like it is required to keep the > kernel from a daily panic. > Does this happen with other kernels aswell? I thought the bug only happens with the lenny 2.6.26-2-xen kernels. -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100406162730.gz1...@reaktio.net
Re: Xen support on Squeeze
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 03:40:40PM -0400, Micah Anderson wrote: > "Nikita V. Youshchenko" writes: > > >> We have had to carry that patch without any upstream support (or sharing > >> with Novell, which eventually released SLES 11 with 2.6.27). As a > >> result, the xen-flavour kernels for lenny are very buggy, particularly > >> for domains with multiple vCPUs (though that *may* be fixed now). > > > > Unfortunately it is not fixed. > > > > We here once migrated to xen and now rely on it, and that gives lots of > > frustration. For any loaded domain we still have to run etch kernel, > > because lenny kernel constantly crashes after several days of heavy load. > > Dom0's run lenny kernel - and with a fix for #542250 they don't crash, but > > those are almost unloaded. > > I was having problems with multiple vCPUs also, under moderate load I > would regularly get crashes. I reported my findings in #504805. I > swapped out machines, didn't work. When the fix for the xen_spin_wait() > came out, I eagerly switched to that, but it didn't fix my problem. I > even tried my hardest to switch to the latest upstream Xen kernel to see > if that would fix things, but it was way too unstable and I couldn't get > it to work at all. > What do you exactly mean with the 'upstream Xen kernel' ? > Eventually I stumbled on a way to keep my machines from restarting, its > not a great solution, but it stops me from having to deal with the > failure on a daily basis. I think that anyone else who is having this > problem can do this and it will work. Obviously this is not the right > solution, but it works until we can get a fix. > > First I made sure this was set: > > /etc/xen/xend-config.sxp: (dom0-cpus 0) > > Then I pinned individual physical CPUs to specific domU's, once pinned, > the problem stops. > vcpu pinning is not required for a properly working kernel.. Although good to hear there's a workaround. -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100406080601.gu1...@reaktio.net
Re: Xen, Squeeze, and Beyond
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 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 - Mostly used on Desktops/Laptops" > > > > > Yes - but also the only game in town for cross platform emulation. > > > > KVM is shaping up well and appears to be very well supported by Red Hat. > > > > > "VirtualBox - Mostly used on Desktops/Laptops" > > > > Who knows what will happen to this now that Oracle own it? It's possible > > it will be merged in one of their other products like Virtual Iron. > > > > > > > > "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 Xen-ified kernel to come out and any > > distribution supporting it has to carry a heavy patch burden. Xen > > doesn't keep anywhere current in terms of kernel - if we release Squeeze > > this year with kernel 2.6.3*, Debian will have to maintain all the patches > > / "forward port" them to 2.6.32 or 2.6.33 as was done with 2.6.2*. > > > > Xen folks are creating 'xen/stable' branch for the pv_ops dom0 kernel, > which is tracking the long-term supported 2.6.32 kernel, which Squeeze > will ship. Currently it's at 2.6.32.9. > > So Xen dom0 support for Squeeze shouldn't be as problematic as the > Lenny 2.6.26 kernel was. (no other distro shipped 2.6.26 and it was > not a long-term maintained kernel). > > Now it would be a good time for everyone to test and report any problems > found from the pvops dom0 kernel; it's still a WIP (Work In Progress), > and requires both the success and problem reports. > Latest 'status report' of Xen pvops dom0 kernel git trees here: http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2010-03/msg00162.html There's "xen/stable-2.6.32.x" branch now. -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100304090557.gr2...@reaktio.net
Re: Xen, Squeeze, and Beyond
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 some answers (which I will then happily document in the wiki). > > > > According to http://wiki.debian.org/SystemVirtualization : > > > > "Qemu and KVM - Mostly used on Desktops/Laptops" > > > Yes - but also the only game in town for cross platform emulation. > > KVM is shaping up well and appears to be very well supported by Red Hat. > > > "VirtualBox - Mostly used on Desktops/Laptops" > > Who knows what will happen to this now that Oracle own it? It's possible > it will be merged in one of their other products like Virtual Iron. > > > > > "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 Xen-ified kernel to come out and any > distribution supporting it has to carry a heavy patch burden. Xen > doesn't keep anywhere current in terms of kernel - if we release Squeeze > this year with kernel 2.6.3*, Debian will have to maintain all the patches > / "forward port" them to 2.6.32 or 2.6.33 as was done with 2.6.2*. > Xen folks are creating 'xen/stable' branch for the pv_ops dom0 kernel, which is tracking the long-term supported 2.6.32 kernel, which Squeeze will ship. Currently it's at 2.6.32.9. So Xen dom0 support for Squeeze shouldn't be as problematic as the Lenny 2.6.26 kernel was. (no other distro shipped 2.6.26 and it was not a long-term maintained kernel). Now it would be a good time for everyone to test and report any problems found from the pvops dom0 kernel; it's still a WIP (Work In Progress), and requires both the success and problem reports. -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100301113424.gm2...@reaktio.net
Re: Xen support on Squeeze
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 06:16:27PM +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 05:10:55PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > Pasi Kärkkäinen writes: > > > > > On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 11:02:51AM +1100, Brian May wrote: > > >> On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 06:12:28PM +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: > > >> > If we're talking about Linux 2.6.32 support for pv_ops dom0 here, then > > >> > that's > > >> > in progress, see: > > >> > > > >> > http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2009-12/msg01127.html > > >> > > > >> > the 2.6.32 tree should be available shortly after Jeremy gets back from > > >> > his vacation. > > >> > > >> What chance does this have of making it in time for Squeeze? > > >> > > > > > > When actually is 'in time' for Squeeze? > > > > > > Novell already has the oldstyle xenlinux patches for 2.6.32, so they > > > could be used, if pv_ops dom0 patches weren't in shape for Squeeze. > > > > > > -- Pasi > > > > Given that the pv_ops dom0 is still unstable: > > > > Where are the oldstyle patches for 2.6.32? > > > > Various Xen dom0 kernel options listed here: > http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenDom0Kernels > > Links to the OpenSUSE kernels (including Xen patches): > http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/Kernel:/HEAD/openSUSE_Factory/ > ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/kernel/kotd/master/ > http://www.gitorious.org/opensuse/kernel-source > > I'll ask Andrew Lyon if he has plans to release more easy-to-use patches > against vanilla kernel.org 2.6.32. > This is the reply I got from Andrew Lyon: http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-users/2010-01/msg00592.html -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Xen support on Squeeze
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 05:10:55PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Pasi Kärkkäinen writes: > > > On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 11:02:51AM +1100, Brian May wrote: > >> On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 06:12:28PM +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: > >> > If we're talking about Linux 2.6.32 support for pv_ops dom0 here, then > >> > that's > >> > in progress, see: > >> > > >> > http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2009-12/msg01127.html > >> > > >> > the 2.6.32 tree should be available shortly after Jeremy gets back from > >> > his vacation. > >> > >> What chance does this have of making it in time for Squeeze? > >> > > > > When actually is 'in time' for Squeeze? > > > > Novell already has the oldstyle xenlinux patches for 2.6.32, so they > > could be used, if pv_ops dom0 patches weren't in shape for Squeeze. > > > > -- Pasi > > Given that the pv_ops dom0 is still unstable: > > Where are the oldstyle patches for 2.6.32? > Various Xen dom0 kernel options listed here: http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenDom0Kernels Links to the OpenSUSE kernels (including Xen patches): http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/Kernel:/HEAD/openSUSE_Factory/ ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/kernel/kotd/master/ http://www.gitorious.org/opensuse/kernel-source I'll ask Andrew Lyon if he has plans to release more easy-to-use patches against vanilla kernel.org 2.6.32. -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Xen support on Squeeze
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 11:06:56AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Sun, 03 Jan 2010, William Pitcock wrote: > > > That was opposed quite strongly by the kernel folks last time it was > > > attempted. Were there any fundamental changes in the Xen dom0 patches > > > since then? > > > > Only by the kernel folks which believe all of the crap that the KVM > > guys say about Xen. There are plenty of kernel developers willing > > to see the patches merged. > > Hmm, you have a problem there. > > Linus is very likely going to cheerfully tell the Xen and KVM developers to > duke it out in a bloodbath, and to not forget to bring AlacrityVM into the > fray either. He could care less for virtualization, and he is likely to > refuse to merge anything non-trivial until the "virtualization crazy people" > manage to reach a consensus on a sane API. Look for the AlacrityVM threads > in LKML if you doubt me. > Then again the KVM vs. AlacrityVM discussion is a bit different. AlacrityVM is a fork of KVM.. > Note: I am not defending KVM. I don't agree with their main ideology (that > their hardware-emulating approach is the One True Way). But I can well see > why Linus decided to take that instance. > > Xen's track record from hell on getting their act cleaned up for upstream > merging is also going to get in the way. Some people have long memories. > Linus has been happily accepting a lot of Xen pv_ops (domU) patches from Jeremy lately.. So it seems to be mostly about the 'quality' of the code. -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Xen support on Squeeze
On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 11:02:51AM +1100, Brian May wrote: > On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 06:12:28PM +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: > > If we're talking about Linux 2.6.32 support for pv_ops dom0 here, then > > that's > > in progress, see: > > > > http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2009-12/msg01127.html > > > > the 2.6.32 tree should be available shortly after Jeremy gets back from > > his vacation. > > What chance does this have of making it in time for Squeeze? > When actually is 'in time' for Squeeze? Novell already has the oldstyle xenlinux patches for 2.6.32, so they could be used, if pv_ops dom0 patches weren't in shape for Squeeze. -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Xen support on Squeeze
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 12:47:54PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Brian May wrote: > > > 1) I believe Xen, with paravirtualization (that is without QEMU) is more > > secure > > then KVM (or Xen) with QEMU. > > I haven't heard this claim before, do you have any references to support this? > Xen guests (domUs) communicate only with Xen hypervisor, and the guests are totally separated from each other and dom0. Xen hypervisor then passes IO requests to/from dom0 for disk/net. Also if running HVM guests the qemu-dm emulator binary can be run in a 'stubdom', so qemu can be put into it's own/private guest to get it out of dom0.. this makes HVM guests communicate with dom0 in the same way as PV guest would. Some people prefer these models, instead of the KVM model where guests are directly running on the host kernel. -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Xen support on Squeeze
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 07:33:07PM +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote: > On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 06:31:20PM +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: > > > So the change has happened, lthough it took painfully long to get the > > upstream Linux pv_ops framework in shape and all that.. and obviously > > the pv_ops dom0 patches still need to get merged upstream. > > That was opposed quite strongly by the kernel folks last time it was > attempted. Were there any fundamental changes in the Xen dom0 patches > since then? > Yeah, the APIC stuff has been re-architected after that. See: http://www.xen.org/files/xensummit_intel09/xensummit-asia-2009-talk.pdf Actually last time when Jeremy tried to upstream the patches there was a lot of noise, and less actual problems. So hoping all the best for next round.. -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Xen support on Squeeze
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 11:23:28AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 01:21:55AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > I believe we will have Xen hypervisor and Linux dom0 packages, > > The hypervisor works well, but the Linux Dom0 packages are not available > yet, upstream is again fading behind. > If we're talking about Linux 2.6.32 support for pv_ops dom0 here, then that's in progress, see: http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2009-12/msg01127.html the 2.6.32 tree should be available shortly after Jeremy gets back from his vacation. -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Xen support on Squeeze
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 10:46:38AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 16:55:27 +1100, Brian May > wrote: > >Like I said previously, I think dropping Xen support is a mistake because KVM > >requires QEMU and QEMU seems to have a reputation of being insecure. > > Xen is unsupportable due to clueless upstream, who has been in a > constant FAIL state regarding support of current kernels for years. > For 6 months now (since summer 2009) xen-unstable (the development version) has been using pv_ops dom0 kernel as a default. pv_ops dom0 kernel is based on upstream kernel.org git tree (of Linus), so it has been pretty much in sync with the upstream Linux development. Currently it's at 2.6.31.6, but will get updated to 2.6.32.x when the main developer gets back from his christmas/NY break. Upcoming Xen 4.0 release will use pv_ops dom0 as a default kernel. So the change has happened, lthough it took painfully long to get the upstream Linux pv_ops framework in shape and all that.. and obviously the pv_ops dom0 patches still need to get merged upstream. pv_ops dom0 kernel definitely needs more testing still, so now it's a good moment to do some testing, if you're interested of this stuff. pv_ops dom0 kernel: http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps If pv_ops dom0 is not what you want, there are many other Xen dom0 kernel options aswell: http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenDom0Kernels -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
New TigerVNC implementation forks (replaces?) TightVNC
Hello!
A new project called TigerVNC (http://tigervnc.org) has forked TightVNC.
Announcement here ("Open Letter: Leaving TightVNC, Founding TigerVNC"):
http://www.realvnc.com/pipermail/vnc-list/2009-February/059615.html
Fedora changed their default VNC from TightVNC to TigerVNC for upcoming Fedora
11:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg00213.html
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488035
Based on that you can guess upcoming Redhat Enterprise Linux 6 will also
have TigerVNC as a default VNC implementation..
Just a heads up about what's happening in the VNC world..
-- Pasi
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Xen status in lenny / linux-image-2.6.26-1-xen in sid with dom0 support included
On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 07:07:54PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote: > Hi, > > Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: > >> Next try: http://194.39.182.225/debian/xen/try4. > > Hmm.. these packages are not available anymore? > > URL changed? > Your local Debian sid mirror, e.g. package > xen-linux-system-2.6.26-1-xen-amd64. > Oh, nice. http://packages.debian.org/sid/linux-image-2.6.26-1-xen-686 http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/l/linux-2.6/linux-2.6_2.6.26-7/changelog "* [xen] Add SuSE Xen patch. (closes: #495895)" Thanks! -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Xen status in lenny?
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 12:43:36PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 05:43:24PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > > This kernel have a critical problem: > > > > | Bad pte = 11764060, process = vsftpd, vm_flags = 100071, vaddr = b7f85000 > > | Pid: 8129, comm: vsftpd Not tainted 2.6.26-1-xen-686 #1 > > | [] handle_mm_fault+0x61b/0xe78 > > | [] mprotect_fixup+0x6d3/0x735 > > | [] do_page_fault+0x684/0xbd6 > > | [] sys_mprotect+0x17a/0x1df > > | [] sys_mprotect+0x1cc/0x1df > > | [] do_page_fault+0x0/0xbd6 > > | [] error_code+0x35/0x3c > > | === > > | VM: killing process vsftpd > > > > The pte have bit 6 set: PAGE_DIRTY aka PAGE_FILE. But the vm flags lacks > > the marker for a nonlinear (file based) mapping. > > Got a response from Novell, including a workaround. > > Next try: http://194.39.182.225/debian/xen/try4. > Hmm.. these packages are not available anymore? URL changed? -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Pkg-xen-devel] Xen status in lenny?
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 09:42:13AM +0200, Jan Wagner wrote: > Good morning, > > On Wednesday 17 September 2008, Paul van der Vlis wrote: > > > since we have rolled out over 50 dom0 with etch, we are really interested > > > into having xen dom0 support in lenny. > > > > So far I know you can run Lenny as a dom0, but not with the Lenny > > kernel. You can e.g. use the Etch Xen kernel or the Xensource kernel, > > both Linux 2.6.18. > > thats not what I understand as "dom0 support in lenny". I'm looking for > security support also for the kernel. I guess even if it's planed to release > lenny+1/2 with a dom0 kernel, we have the chance to have 2 pita: > > * there will no dom0 support from upstream available in reasonable time You can monitor these pages for dom0 related info: dom0 (and other pv_ops) patches: http://xenbits.xensource.com/paravirt_ops/patches.hg/ General information/progress about pv_ops upstream Xen kernel: http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Xen-devel] State of Xen in upstream Linux
- Forwarded message from Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Xen-devel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Virtualization Mailing List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:51:37 -0700 Subject: [Xen-devel] State of Xen in upstream Linux Well, the mainline kernel just hit 2.6.27-rc1, so it's time for an update about what's new with Xen. I'm trying to aim this at both the user and developer audiences, so bear with me if I seem to be waffling about something irrelevant. 2.6.26 was mostly a bugfix update compared with 2.6.25, with a few small issues fixed up. Feature-wise, it supports 32-bit domU with the core devices needed to make it work (netfront, blockfront, console). It also has xen-pvfb support, which means you can run the standard X server without needing to set up Xvnc. I don't know of any bugs in 2.6.26, so I'd recommend you try it out for all your 32-bit domU needs. It has had fairly wide exposure in Fedora kernels, so I'd rank its stability as fairly high. If you're migrating from 2.6.18-xen, then there'll be a few things you need to pay attention to. http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps should help, but if it doesn't, please either fix it and/or ask! 2.6.27 will be a much more interesting release. It has two major feature additions: save/restore/migrate (including checkpoint and live migration), and x86-64 support. In keeping with the overall unification of i386 and x86-64 code in the kernel, the 32- and 64-bit Xen code is largely shared, so they have feature parity. The Xen support seems fairly stable in linux-2.6.git, but the kernel is still at -rc1, so lots of other things will tend to break. I encourage you to try it out if you're comfortable with what's still a fairly high rate of change. My current patch stack is pretty much empty - everything has been merged into linux-2.6.git - so it makes a good base for any changes you may have Now that Xen can directly boot a bzImage format kernel, distros have a lot of flexibilty in how they package Xen. A single grub.conf entry can be used to boot either a native kernel (via normal grub), or a paravirtualized Xen kernel (via pygrub), without modification. Fedora 9's kernel-xen package has been based on the mainline kernel from the outset, but it is still packaged as a separate kernel. kernel-xen has been dropped from rawhide (what will become Fedora 10), and all Xen support - both 32 and 64 bit - has been rolled into the main kernel package. So, what's next? The obvious big piece of missing functionality is dom0 support. That will be my focus in this next kernel development window, and I hope we'll have it merged into 2.6.28. Some roadblock may appear which prevents this (kernel development is always a bit uncertain), but that's the current plan. We're planning on setting up a xen.git on xen.org somewhere. We still need to work out the precise details, but my expectation is that will become the place where dom0 work continues, and I also hope that other Xen developers will start using it as the base for their own Xen work. Expect to see some more concrete details over the next week or so. What can I do? I'm glad you asked. Here's my current TODO list. These are mostly fairly small-scale projects which just need some attention. I'd love people to adopt things from this list. x86-64: SMP broken with CONFIG_PREEMPT It crashes early after bringing up a second CPU when preempt is enabled. I think it's failing to set up the CPU topology properly, and leaving something uninitialized. The desired topology is the simplest possible - one core per package, no SMT/HT, no multicore, no shared caches. It should be simple to set up. irq balancing causes lockups Using irq balancing causes the kernel to lock up after a while. It looks like it's losing interrupts. It's probably dropping interrupts if you migrate an irq beween vcpus while an event is pending. Shouldn't be too hard to fix. (In the meantime, the workaround is to make sure that you don't enable in-kernel irq balancing, and you don't run irqbalanced.) block device hotplug Hotplugging devices should work already, but I haven't really tested it. Need to make sure that both the in-kernel driver stuff works properly, and that udev events are raised properly, scripts run, device nodes added - and conversely for unplug. Also, a modular xen-blockfront.ko should be unloadable. net device hotplug Similar to block devices, but with a slight extra complication. If the driver has outstanding granted pages, then the module can't be immediately unloaded, because you can't free the pages if dom0 has a reference to them. My thought is to add a simple kernel thread which takes ownership of unwanted granted pages: it would periodically try to ungrant them, and if successful, f
Re: Xen status in lenny?
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 05:52:49PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote: > Hi! > > On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 01:04:45AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote: > > right but still no excuse to bring in a patch set that is *known* > > to not be merged upstream. > > with our current options, loosing xen dom0 support IS a very good > excuse for this, IMO. > Just for the record, Ubuntu chose this way and patched their 2.6.24 kernel in 8.04 LTS with forward-port of 2.6.18 xensource xen patches. -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Xen status in lenny?
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 09:09:52PM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > Bastian Blank wrote: > > Xen got a often used technique in the last two years. All of the large > > distributions got some sort of support for it. Debian Etch have full > > support for it. There was several requests of various people so I think > > not providing at least a minimal support in Lenny is wrong. > > > > I think option 4 would be the solution which produces the least amount > > of extra work and provides our users with support for there systems. I > > would provide the necessary packages but I want an okay for that > > solution from the security and the release team. > > Since there's now a sixth option - the forward-ported XenSource patch to > SLES's 2.6.26 - could we test this patch before we decide on a plan? > > To me using the forward-ported SLES patch for Lenny and switching to pvops > post-Lenny seems ideal. > Yes, that would be ideal solution for users that want to have full-featured Xen in Lenny. But if you read the other messages in this thread, it won't happen I guess :( That SLES forward-port for 2.6.26 is not acceptable based on Debian kernel patch policy: http://wiki.debian.org/DebianKernelPatchAcceptanceGuidelines -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Pkg-xen-devel] Xen status in lenny?
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 08:56:24PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote: > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 09:44:00PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 07:26:48PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 07:53:52PM +0300, Teodor wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Pasi Kärkkäinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > See: http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps > > > > >> > > I think x86-64 xen patches are going in for 2.6.27.. > > > > > > > > > > Lenny will not support 64bit, no dom0.. so basicly lenny can only be > > > > > used as > > > > > a 32bit domU .. unless people build/get some other dom0 kernel. > > > > > > > > What about the patches for x86-64 support in domU? If these are going > > > > to be included in 2.6.27 does it mean they qualify [1] to be included > > > > in the kernel for lenny? > > > > > > no. > > > please read a thread before posting to it, that question is already > > > answered twice. > > > > > > > btw out of curiosity do you know if the kernel patch policy was different > > earlier (for etch), because xen kernel for etch (2.6.18-*-xen-686) contains > > non-upstream xen patches (from xensource).. > > xen upstream back then ported forward their own patches *and* everybody > expected their patches to be merged. earliest merge plans were floating > for 2.6.15. > Ok. This is what I expected happened back then. > reliance on external patches is always bad, kvm is in kernel. > it doesn't try to duplicate dog and cat, but uses linux scheduler > itself and so on.. > Yep. > also if release team still decides to push for 2.6.25, which is > possible if 2.6.26 turns out bad, you still have much less xen > features. > Indeed. This is why the situation with Xen for Lenny is really problematic.. -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Pkg-xen-devel] Xen status in lenny?
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 07:26:48PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote: > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 07:53:52PM +0300, Teodor wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Pasi Kärkkäinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > See: http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps > > >> > > I think x86-64 xen patches are going in for 2.6.27.. > > > > > > Lenny will not support 64bit, no dom0.. so basicly lenny can only be used > > > as > > > a 32bit domU .. unless people build/get some other dom0 kernel. > > > > What about the patches for x86-64 support in domU? If these are going > > to be included in 2.6.27 does it mean they qualify [1] to be included > > in the kernel for lenny? > > no. > please read a thread before posting to it, that question is already > answered twice. > btw out of curiosity do you know if the kernel patch policy was different earlier (for etch), because xen kernel for etch (2.6.18-*-xen-686) contains non-upstream xen patches (from xensource).. -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Pkg-xen-devel] Xen status in lenny?
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 02:11:48PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote: > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 07:11:06AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote: > > > > Without dom0, lenny will be unusable for several installations of mine > > which presently run an ugly combination of etch's dom0 and lenny's > > kernel. I would like to do that in a different way. > > > > If we will not see dom0 in linux-2.6 on Debian, we should at least have > > a 2.6.18 tree with dom0. > > no. > we will not have 2 different linux-2.6 versions in Lenny. > please think of the implications before throwing out suggestions. > So basicly Debian takes the same route as Fedora did (see my other mail about it). It's understandable from the distribution/kernel maintencance point of view. But it's really sucky for the users.. This needs good documentation in the release notes etc.. so people realize lenny won't support Xen virtualization anymore (running virtual machines on lenny host). -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Pkg-xen-devel] Xen status in lenny?
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 07:11:06AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote: > On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 12:35 +0200, maximilian attems wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 12:51:21PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:50:22AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote: > > > > On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 05:22:55PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hopefully Jeremy Fitzhardinge (from Xensource) and others can get > > > > > > the > > > > > > important Xen kernel features ported to pv_ops framework and > > > > > > integrated > > > > > > into vanilla linus kernels soon.. > > > > > > > > > > > > Status/todo: > > > > > > http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps > > > > > > > > > > > > Redhat/Fedora pv_ops Xen kernel dom0 support status: > > > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvopsDom0 > > > > > > > > > > SLES 11 will include Linux 2.6.26 with Xen patches - packages should > > > > > be > > > > > available any day now from > > > > > <ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/kernel/kotd/SL110_BRANCH/i386/>. Is > > > > > it > > > > > possible that those patches will be usable in lenny, as I believe the > > > > > kernel team expects to release with Linux 2.6.26? > > > > > > > > dom0 looks currently out of reach, > > > > what we have is the snapshotting features of 2.6.27 for x86_32. > > > > > > > > > > Hmm.. what do you mean with "out of reach" ? pv_ops dom0 is not yet > > > ready/working, but those SLES 11 patches have the xensource (2.6.18 > > > forward > > > port) of dom0 and all the other xen kernel features for 2.6.26.. > > > > sorry but no please read > > http://wiki.debian.org/DebianKernelPatchAcceptanceGuidelines > > > > pv_ops is the upstream way we enabled them in 2.6.25 and > > enhance the existing 2.6.26 base. > > what are you moaning? > > Without dom0, lenny will be unusable for several installations of mine > which presently run an ugly combination of etch's dom0 and lenny's > kernel. I would like to do that in a different way. > > If we will not see dom0 in linux-2.6 on Debian, we should at least have > a 2.6.18 tree with dom0. > For comparison Fedora people decided to release F9 with only domU support included.. they didn't want to do anymore forward porting from xensource 2.6.18 xen kernels (I bet noone wants to do that) and decided to include pv_ops based upstream kernel. And they wanted to have same versions of both the normal (baremetal) kernel and kernel-xen. but they patched 64bit xen pv_ops domU support in. So F9 supports both 32b and 64b pv_ops domU. F9 has 2.6.25 kernel. Fedora is planning to add dom0 support back to their kernel when pv_ops based dom0 is functional.. It's not yet certain if it will be ready for their next release (F10). Fedora people didn't want to include separate (2.6.18) xen dom0 kernel.. because it would have created too many problems with other tools/packages requiring features/APIs/ABIs from the kernel.. too big difference between 2.6.18 (xensource) and 2.6.25+ (vanilla/upstream linux). So yeah, just to wrap up their thoughts. -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Pkg-xen-devel] Xen status in lenny?
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 02:23:26PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:57:26AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 12:51 +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:50:22AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote: > > > > see relevant posts of Ian Campbell on d-kernel > > > > > > > > > > You mean this?: > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2008/07/msg00070.html > > > > > > I think the situation has changed after that.. > > > > The save/restore and ballooning patches were applied to the trunk 2.6.26 > > Debian kernel a few days back, enabling these features for 32 bit > > kernels. > > > > Yep. > > > > > > > See: http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps > > > > > > I think x86-64 xen patches are going in for 2.6.27.. > > > > > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/x86/linux-2.6-tip.git;a=summary > > > > > > "9 hours ago Ingo Molnar Merge branch 'xen-64bit'" > > > > Lenny will be releasing with (at most) 2.6.26 and these patches are a > > bit too large and intrusive to non-Xen code paths to be backported. > > > > Yeah, I only meant those patches are queued for upstream 2.6.27. I didn't > mean they should be applied to debian xen kernel for lenny. > > Like said, this thread was started to discuss about possible options of > getting xen dom0 support into lenny, and I pasted that git link to give a > status update of pv_ops work happening atm. > Lenny will ship with a much worse Xen support than etch.. which sucks. Lenny will not support 64bit, no dom0.. so basicly lenny can only be used as a 32bit domU .. unless people build/get some other dom0 kernel. Obviously this is not debian's fault, and that's why we have this discussion now.. trying to see if there are any options of fixing the situation. (this thread was started on debian-xen list btw.. at some point it has falled off from CC list though) -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Pkg-xen-devel] Xen status in lenny?
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:57:26AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 12:51 +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:50:22AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote: > > > see relevant posts of Ian Campbell on d-kernel > > > > > > > You mean this?: http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2008/07/msg00070.html > > > > I think the situation has changed after that.. > > The save/restore and ballooning patches were applied to the trunk 2.6.26 > Debian kernel a few days back, enabling these features for 32 bit > kernels. > Yep. > > > > See: http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps > > > > I think x86-64 xen patches are going in for 2.6.27.. > > > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/x86/linux-2.6-tip.git;a=summary > > > > "9 hours agoIngo Molnar Merge branch 'xen-64bit'" > > Lenny will be releasing with (at most) 2.6.26 and these patches are a > bit too large and intrusive to non-Xen code paths to be backported. > Yeah, I only meant those patches are queued for upstream 2.6.27. I didn't mean they should be applied to debian xen kernel for lenny. Like said, this thread was started to discuss about possible options of getting xen dom0 support into lenny, and I pasted that git link to give a status update of pv_ops work happening atm. -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Pkg-xen-devel] Xen status in lenny?
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 12:35:09PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote: > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 12:51:21PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:50:22AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote: > > > On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 05:22:55PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hopefully Jeremy Fitzhardinge (from Xensource) and others can get the > > > > > important Xen kernel features ported to pv_ops framework and > > > > > integrated > > > > > into vanilla linus kernels soon.. > > > > > > > > > > Status/todo: > > > > > http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps > > > > > > > > > > Redhat/Fedora pv_ops Xen kernel dom0 support status: > > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvopsDom0 > > > > > > > > SLES 11 will include Linux 2.6.26 with Xen patches - packages should be > > > > available any day now from > > > > <ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/kernel/kotd/SL110_BRANCH/i386/>. Is it > > > > possible that those patches will be usable in lenny, as I believe the > > > > kernel team expects to release with Linux 2.6.26? > > > > > > dom0 looks currently out of reach, > > > what we have is the snapshotting features of 2.6.27 for x86_32. > > > > > > > Hmm.. what do you mean with "out of reach" ? pv_ops dom0 is not yet > > ready/working, but those SLES 11 patches have the xensource (2.6.18 forward > > port) of dom0 and all the other xen kernel features for 2.6.26.. > > sorry but no please read > http://wiki.debian.org/DebianKernelPatchAcceptanceGuidelines > > pv_ops is the upstream way we enabled them in 2.6.25 and > enhance the existing 2.6.26 base. > what are you moaning? > This thread was started to discuss possible ways to get xen dom0 support into lenny.. this SLES11 patch thingie was one option. But I guess it's not possible solution. > > > see relevant posts of Ian Campbell on d-kernel > > > > > > > You mean this?: http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2008/07/msg00070.html > > > > I think the situation has changed after that.. > > > > See: http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps > > > > I think x86-64 xen patches are going in for 2.6.27.. > > > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/x86/linux-2.6-tip.git;a=summary > > > > "9 hours agoIngo Molnar Merge branch 'xen-64bit'" > > right but you seem to have zero idea about the x86 upstream git > tree and it's dependencies. the merge of that is out of question > for the upcoming stable kernel. > I only meant that those patches are queued for 2.6.27. -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Pkg-xen-devel] Xen status in lenny?
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:50:22AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 05:22:55PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: > > > > > Hopefully Jeremy Fitzhardinge (from Xensource) and others can get the > > > important Xen kernel features ported to pv_ops framework and integrated > > > into vanilla linus kernels soon.. > > > > > > Status/todo: > > > http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps > > > > > > Redhat/Fedora pv_ops Xen kernel dom0 support status: > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvopsDom0 > > > > SLES 11 will include Linux 2.6.26 with Xen patches - packages should be > > available any day now from > > <ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/kernel/kotd/SL110_BRANCH/i386/>. Is it > > possible that those patches will be usable in lenny, as I believe the > > kernel team expects to release with Linux 2.6.26? > > dom0 looks currently out of reach, > what we have is the snapshotting features of 2.6.27 for x86_32. > Hmm.. what do you mean with "out of reach" ? pv_ops dom0 is not yet ready/working, but those SLES 11 patches have the xensource (2.6.18 forward port) of dom0 and all the other xen kernel features for 2.6.26.. > see relevant posts of Ian Campbell on d-kernel > You mean this?: http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2008/07/msg00070.html I think the situation has changed after that.. See: http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps I think x86-64 xen patches are going in for 2.6.27.. http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/x86/linux-2.6-tip.git;a=summary "9 hours agoIngo Molnar Merge branch 'xen-64bit'" -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Pkg-xen-devel] Xen status in lenny?
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 03:51:12AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 11:42 +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: > > > > I guess it was faster _now_, but they'll have to live with the forward > > porting pain for years more now.. > > While this is true, the patches still allow for Debian to ship Lenny > without a feature regression in Xen support. > Well that's true.. -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Pkg-xen-devel] Xen status in lenny?
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 03:40:38AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote: > On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 11:12 +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 01:54:50AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 05:22:55PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: > > > > > > > Hopefully Jeremy Fitzhardinge (from Xensource) and others can get the > > > > important Xen kernel features ported to pv_ops framework and integrated > > > > into vanilla linus kernels soon.. > > > > > > > > Status/todo: > > > > http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps > > > > > > > > This xensource wiki page was just updated to contain up-to-date status, > > ie. features present in 2.6.26 and features submitted for 2.6.27. > > > > > > > > Redhat/Fedora pv_ops Xen kernel dom0 support status: > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvopsDom0 > > > > > > SLES 11 will include Linux 2.6.26 with Xen patches - packages should be > > > available any day now from > > > <ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/kernel/kotd/SL110_BRANCH/i386/>. Is it > > > possible that those patches will be usable in lenny, as I believe the > > > kernel team expects to release with Linux 2.6.26? > > > > > > > Interesting.. do you know if they have dom0 support etc included? based on > > pv_ops? > > They include dom0 and are not based on paravirt_ops AFAIK. > Argh.. even more forward porting from xensource 2.6.18 tree instead of porting to pv_ops and getting the pathes integrated upstream to vanilla kernel :( I guess it was faster _now_, but they'll have to live with the forward porting pain for years more now.. -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Pkg-xen-devel] Xen status in lenny?
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 01:54:50AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 05:22:55PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: > > > Hopefully Jeremy Fitzhardinge (from Xensource) and others can get the > > important Xen kernel features ported to pv_ops framework and integrated > > into vanilla linus kernels soon.. > > > > Status/todo: > > http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps > > This xensource wiki page was just updated to contain up-to-date status, ie. features present in 2.6.26 and features submitted for 2.6.27. > > Redhat/Fedora pv_ops Xen kernel dom0 support status: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvopsDom0 > > SLES 11 will include Linux 2.6.26 with Xen patches - packages should be > available any day now from > <ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/kernel/kotd/SL110_BRANCH/i386/>. Is it > possible that those patches will be usable in lenny, as I believe the > kernel team expects to release with Linux 2.6.26? > Interesting.. do you know if they have dom0 support etc included? based on pv_ops? -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Pkg-xen-devel] Xen status in lenny?
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 12:49:07PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 09:24:08AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > > > > > Xensource has a developer working on getting xen patches ported to Linux > > pv_ops framework and integrated into upstream (vanilla) kernel. > > That is, to me, only mildly encouraging. 2.6.18 came out on Sept. 19, > 2006, and there haven't been official Xen patches on anything else > since. I don't know if that programmer hasn't been able to be very > productive, or if Xensource has just recently assigned someone to the > task. But in any case, it does not speak well of the long-term > viability of Xen. > Xensource is using 2.6.18 (RHEL5) in their own commercial product, so that's why they're focusing xen kernel development on that version.. Xensource tried getting xen patches integrated into upstream linux earlier, but it didn't succeed (too big changes?) and kernel developers decided they need to create this common "pv_ops" framework for running paravirtual linux on hypervisors.. So that has taken some time.. and only recently (some) xen features have been ported to this pv_ops framework and integrated into vanilla kernel.. more features are being ported. So yeah.. atm the xen/dom0 kernel situation is a bit shitty.. pv_ops (VMI) paravirtual linux kernels are also supported by VMware. -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Pkg-xen-devel] Xen status in lenny?
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 09:24:08AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > On 15/07/08 at 14:01 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > > - KVM: is very promising but is it really a valid alternative *now* > > for current Xen users? > > That is an interesting question. We are doing some research on that > topic right now. I've migrated some VMware and xen stuff on my own > workstation to KVM, with highly encouraging results. That is, of > course, different than a server situation, but a data point nonetheless. > > We have been happy with Xen in principle, but there have been enough > strange things happen over the past year or two that we're not entirely > comfortable with it anymore. These things include the hypervisor > crashing on creation or removal of a domU, strange kernel oops in domUs, > and severe brokenness of pciback. > > It should be noted that KVM does not include PCI backend support, though > with the degree of brokenness of it in Xen, that may not be an issue. > Also, KVM requires hardware virtualization support, which Xen does not. > So it is not entirely a drop-in replacement. > > The fact that Xensource is supporting 2.6.18 only, and that work on KVM > is integrated into the kernel upstream, is a strong argument to us for > converting to KVM. Unless something changes drastically with Xen's > kernel support, I can't see us doing anything but KVM long term. > Xensource has a developer working on getting xen patches ported to Linux pv_ops framework and integrated into upstream (vanilla) kernel. Vanilla Linux v2.6.26 already contains 32bit (PAE) paravirtual domU support with SMP, framebuffer, memory ballooning (contraction only) etc.. More features are being currently prepared for 2.6.27.. including 64bit domU support, save/restore/migration etc.. Atm biggest (most important) missing feature from vanilla kernel is dom0 support.. See: http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps So in short the situation is getting better slowly.. At the moment "full" Xen feature set is only available in xensource 2.6.18 kernel. -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Pkg-xen-devel] Xen status in lenny?
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 02:54:09PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 15/07/08 at 14:01 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > > Xen is just one solution to virtualisation. I may agree that a general > > decision to support virtualisation on Debian could be a policy decision, > > but > > whether we'll support one specific technology, for which there are many > > alternatives, is very much a technical decision. Does it work, can we get > > it > > to work and do we have the people to keep it work after release? > > Debian supported Xen in etch. Which of the "many alternatives" should > Debian recommend to its users currently running a Debian dom0 in > paravirt mode? > > I don't think that any of the alternatives are valid candidates yet: > - Linux-Vserver, OpenVZ: clearly not the same use case. > - Virtualbox, qemu: poor performance under some workloads. > - KVM: is very promising but is it really a valid alternative *now* > for current Xen users? > One big difference between Xen and KVM is the fact that KVM always requires hardware virtualization (HVM) support from the CPU. Xen doesn't need that for paravirt guests (linux). Xen still is the most feature rich hypervisor.. that might change some day, of course. The biggest advantage of KVM is that it's included in vanilla kernel.. Hopefully Jeremy Fitzhardinge (from Xensource) and others can get the important Xen kernel features ported to pv_ops framework and integrated into vanilla linus kernels soon.. Status/todo: http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps Redhat/Fedora pv_ops Xen kernel dom0 support status: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvopsDom0 -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Pkg-xen-devel] Xen status in lenny?
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 01:08:23PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 12/07/08 at 19:39 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 12:10:28AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > We (Debian) should make a clear statement that users of Debian as dom0 > > > will have at least one supported configuration at any time during the > > > lenny lifetime. > > > > What I don't see you saying is that *you* are volunteering to step up and > > help provide security support for this kernel. So it's "we" when we're > > making a statement, but it's still "they" who would have to provide the > > actual support, AFAICS. > > How/if we will support Xen in lenny is more a policy decision than a > technical decision, even if it has important technical aspects. > > Even if it's not optimal, I agree with do-ocracy for technical > decisions. However, using it for everything is dangerous. Instead, I > prefer to: > 1/ understand the situation > 2/ determine the possible solutions > 3/ determine the best solutions, given external constraints (inc. >manpower) > 4/ try to find someone to do the work > > Throwing "you are not going to do the work anyway, so you are > irrelevant" at everybody is not helpful at all, and just adds noise to > the discussion, because we are still between stages 2 and 3 here. The situation is pretty much like this: - Upstream vendor (Xensource) only develops 2.6.18 Xen dom0/domU kernel atm. - paravirt_ops (pv_ops) Xen support in vanilla (v2.6.24+) Linux kernels is currently domU only. Also it's 32bit PAE only, no 64bit yet. Other features are missing too (compared to xensource 2.6.18 xen kernel). - Xen kernel features from 2.6.18 are being ported and added slowly to 2.6.2x pv_ops kernels but it takes time and effort to get them ported and accepted upstream (by linus). Currently Jeremy Fitzhardinge (from Xensource) is doing this work. I think currently he's working on getting 64bit domU support ready/integrated. - Redhat/Fedora has done some pv_ops xen dom0 support work, but it's not ready yet and it hasn't had much progress lately.. unfortunately. - 2.6.22 and 2.6.24 (non pv_ops) kernels with forward ported patches from 2.6.18 are a real pain for kernel maintainers.. - Fedora decided to drop dom0 xen kernel for Fedora 9. Fedora 9 only ships with xen pv_ops domU kernel. They're planning to add dom0 support back for Fedora 10 if/when (pv_ops) dom0 support is included in the upstream vanilla (linus) kernel. Some links: http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvopsDom0 -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How to build XEN dom0 and domU kernels based on 2.6.25?
On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 02:46:09PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > "Daniel Widenfalk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Ok, so dropping back a step. Let's assume that I build the 3.2.0 XEN > > hypervisor and dom0 kernel using 2.6.18 as base. I should then be able to > > build domU kernel(s) using the linux-source-2.6.25 files? How? > > > > I can't seem to get CONFIG_XEN set in my .config file. Running "make > > menuconfig" does not show any xen-specific options. > > > > Regards > > /Daniel > > Processor type and features > Paravirtualized guest support > Xen guest support > > Only available on 32bit though. > Redhat/Fedora has patches for 2.6.25 to support 64bit pv_ops xen domU too. -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How to build XEN dom0 and domU kernels based on 2.6.25?
On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 11:37:44PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi all, > > I've been trying (with absolutely no success) to build XEN kernels using > the 2.6.25 kernel source tree. I've got 10 domU's and 2 dom0 that I want > to upgrade. > > I've done > > $ apt-get install linux-tree-2.5.26 > $ tar xjz linux-source-2.5.6.bz2 > > and then numerous variations of > > $ make-kpkg --arch xxx --subarch yyy kernel_image > $ make menuconfig > > etc etc... > > Can someone please help me? > > Do I need to install some other "kernel-patch"? > Linux 2.6.25 contains Xen pv_ops domU support only. There is currently no dom0 functionality in 2.6.25 kernel. Redhat/Fedora is working on writing dom0 support for 2.6.25+ kernels, but it's still a work in progress. Currently you have to use either the xensource 2.6.18 based dom0 kernel, or then some of the forward-ported 2.6.2x xen kernels, but those are less stable than xensource 2.6.18 version. I think ubuntu 8.04 has some forward port from xensource 2.6.18 to 2.6.24 with dom0 support. Doing this "forward porting" is a pain in the ass for distro/kernel developers, so noone is wanting to do it. That's why Redhat/Fedora decided to step up and continue the pv_ops work for 2.6.25+ and try to get it integrated into vanilla/linus kernel, so no patching or forward porting would be needed in the future. Hopefully that helps. -- Pasi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Poor quality of multipath-tools
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 08:07:16AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 02:39:16PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: > > Not always true. Both paths can be active at the same time.. if supported by > > the SAN array. Then you do also load balancing between the paths.. > > Quite true, though my impression is that this is much more rare. Our > controller (HP MSA1500cs) seems to have added active/active controllers > as a recent option. > > I'm not really sure if multipath-tools supports active/active > controllers, though. Do you know? > Yes, active/active is working fine: $ multipath -ll system (30690a018c032d43ece43440cd044) [size=18 GB][features="0"][hwhandler="0"] \_ round-robin 0 [active] \_ 0:0:1:0 sda 8:0 [active][ready] \_ 1:0:1:0 sdc 8:32 [active][ready] that's LUN from Equallogic iSCSI SAN array.. loadbalanced with round-robin. Box is even booted from the SAN :) took some time to create the initrd images to set up multipathing for boot/system volume.. -- Pasi Kärkkäinen ^ . . Linux /-\ Choice.of.the .Next.Generation. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Poor quality of multipath-tools
On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 04:06:54PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 10:34:41PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > > Well, I do not even know what multipath _is_, nor why it is important. > > If that is representative, I suspect the people interested in > > multipath have some work to do to raise the awareness of the problem. > > > > This email is a very good start, but it seem to assume that everyone > > know what multipart is and why it is important. Is multipath machines > > as common as the ppc64 machines, or is the problem affecting a lot of > > users? > > Let me give a brief explanation of multipath. > > Let's say you want a bunch of disk space. A whole lot -- maybe > terabytes worth. So you buy a SAN, which is a device that might have > dozens or hundreds of disks in it. And you can hook multiple servers to > this SAN. So you have a SAN controller, a bunch of disks in whatever > RAID configurations you like hooked to it, a fibre channel switch, and > each server hooked to the FC switch. > > Suddenly you have a lot of really important single points of failure > that could take down not just one but many servers -- the FC switch, the > SAN controller, the FC cables, etc. > > So the solution is to build two distinct I/O paths for any server to > reach the disks. The SAN will have two controllers (each with access to > disk enclosures). You'll have two FC switches, one controller cabled to > each. And each server will have two FC links, one to each switch. > > Now, when you bring up this system, Linux will assign *two* /dev/sdx > devices for each RAID LUN (basically looks like a disk). At any given > time, exactly one will be readable and useful. That is, the disk can be > probed on both controllers, but only one path will support I/O at any > given time. > Not always true. Both paths can be active at the same time.. if supported by the SAN array. Then you do also load balancing between the paths.. I'm currently using multipath with iSCSI SAN, using two active paths with load balancing and failover. So I'm also interested in this stuff.. - Pasi Kärkkäinen > Adding to the complexity, which one to use can vary while the system > runs. For instance, if a SAN controller dies, everybody switches over > to the backup path. > > The multipath-tools package is the userland support necessary to make > all this work in a sane fashion. It uses the dm-multipath kernel module > to do that. > > But it's got some problems: > > 1) It doesn't properly scan partition tables in multipath devices > > 2) It doesn't integrate with initramfs, so it's not possible to boot > off a multipath device unless more work is done > > 3) Some other general bugs and issues > > BTW, multipath is often called MPIO (MultiPath I/O) > > > > I am gravely concerned, though, about the lack of attention this > > > package is receiving. Does anyone intend to give it some TLC > > > anytime soon? > > > > Perhaps you could give it some tender loving care, and talk to the > > people maintaining the affected packages using IRC and email, and > > hopefully get them to realize why they should fix it in time for > > etch. :) > > That's what I intend to do. It's maintained by the LVM folks, though, > and seems to be tied reasonably closely to that somehow. I'm not as > familiar with all this as they are. But it seems like the package is > not really being looked after, given its bug reports. > > I have already uploaded multipath-tools-initramfs to Incoming, which > simply installs initramfs hooks and scripts to make it possible to boot > from multipath. We are successfully using it with these scripts at our > site. > > > I suspect you might wait in wane if you expect someone else to do > > it. :) > > I understand. I'm just trying to figure out if there are interested > parties out here to pitch in, if the LVM folks have plans for it, etc. > > I'm brand-new at this and wouldn't be at all surprised if someone else > was more capable at it than I am. > > -- John > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GBit performance problem with nfs client
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 03:25:10PM +0200, Gordon Grubert wrote: > Dear Debian developers, > > it seems that there is a little problem with the NFS client > in Debian sarge. I hope this is the best place to post this > problem. I have discussed this on > http://lists.debian.org/debian-user-german/2006/06/msg00130.html > before but no solution has been found. > > The situation: > I have a file server running on Sarge AMD64 connected > with a 1GBit interface to a GBit uplink off the switch. > Do not think that this sounds like a common problem. It isn't!!! > Btw what switch do you have? There is a known problem in HP switches where traffic from port operating at Gigabit to port operating at 100 Mbps (or the other way) will be really slow.. 20-30 Mbps max. Although sometimes the performance is ok.. mostly not. The problem can be "fixed" by disabling QoS features in the switch.. -- Pasi ^ . . Linux /-\ Choice.of.the .Next.Generation. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Imp 3.0/3.1 debian packages?
Hello! What's the status of newer imp packages for woody/sid? - Pasi Kärkkäinen ^ . . Linux /-\ Choice.of.the .Next.Generation. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
