Re: [RESENT] Re: Xen for Squeeze, 3.4 or 4.0
Russell Coker wrote: > Sometimes you test two options and find that for some systems one works well > and for other systems the other works well. Then if both options are > available you can get most (maybe all) systems working well, but if one > option > isn't available then some systems don't work well. Could you please report what option(s) in 4.0 isn't (aren't) working? Thomas -- 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/4c11e814.7040...@goirand.fr
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: [Pkg-xen-devel] [RESENT] Re: Xen for Squeeze, 3.4 or 4.0
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, "James Harper" wrote: > It would be nice if it could automatically detect xen kernels when you > update-grub it though... or maybe that's what you were asking? Adding a > custom section to the .d directory works but is a bit messy. Yes, I applied a patch for that based on a grub2 bug report. But it didn't seem to work well. -- russ...@coker.com.au http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Main Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog -- 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/201006111700.00390.russ...@coker.com.au
Re: [RESENT] Re: Xen for Squeeze, 3.4 or 4.0
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Thomas Goirand wrote: > Russell Coker wrote: > > Based on my experience with Xen I think that we should have both. Then > > if one doesn't work we can try the other. > > I don't think having to do a double work is a good idea. I agree that doubling the work is generally a bad idea. If having two versions supported means that neither is supported properly then it makes sense to cut one - in which case I think we should drop 3.4 as it works badly enough for me that I can't imaging 4.0 being worse. But I suspect that leaving 3.4 in it's current state would be a reasonable option, it works well on two out of five systems I've tried it on and it doesn't fail badly on machine three. > > 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. > > Do you also hang garlic on the server, to bring good luck? COME ON... > this is computer science here, not voodoo! You should test things, see > what works best, and go with it. If you see bugs, try to remove them. Sometimes you test two options and find that for some systems one works well and for other systems the other works well. Then if both options are available you can get most (maybe all) systems working well, but if one option isn't available then some systems don't work well. -- russ...@coker.com.au http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Main Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog -- 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/201006111659.15101.russ...@coker.com.au
RE: [Pkg-xen-devel] [RESENT] Re: Xen for Squeeze, 3.4 or 4.0
> > 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'm running grub from squeeze with a hand-compiled xen 4.0.1-rc. There are a few quirks with it (it eats the first parameter for each kernel/module) but that's workaroundable. It would be nice if it could automatically detect xen kernels when you update-grub it though... or maybe that's what you were asking? Adding a custom section to the .d directory works but is a bit messy. James -- 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/aec6c66638c05b468b556ea548c1a77d01997...@trantor
Re: [RESENT] Re: Xen for Squeeze, 3.4 or 4.0
[3.4 vs. 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! > [...] I have no idea how much work that is, but I do agree that having both versions would be the optimal solution. Still, I completely understand that this likely is infeasible given limited man power - but thank you very much for nicely maintaining the Xen packages, I do truly enjoy using the packages in stable on our servers without a single glitch! Thanks a lot, Michael pgpgg3twMOIyS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [RESENT] Re: Xen for Squeeze, 3.4 or 4.0
Russell Coker wrote: > Based on my experience with Xen I think that we should have both. Then if > one > doesn't work we can try the other. I don't think having to do a double work is a good idea. > 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. Do you also hang garlic on the server, to bring good luck? COME ON... this is computer science here, not voodoo! You should test things, see what works best, and go with it. If you see bugs, try to remove them. > Bastian, thanks a lot for all your great work on this, it's very important to > me and to lots of other people! I agree. > 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. I don't agree (see above). Thomas -- 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/4c11d1f5.3010...@goirand.fr
Re: [RESENT] Re: Xen for Squeeze, 3.4 or 4.0
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. -- russ...@coker.com.au http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Main Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog -- 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/201006111223.05183.russ...@coker.com.au
Re: [Pkg-xen-devel] [RESENT] Re: Xen for Squeeze, 3.4 or 4.0
Łukasz Oleś 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. Thomas -- 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/4c117666.3090...@goirand.fr
Re: [RESENT] Re: Xen for Squeeze, 3.4 or 4.0
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. -- Łukasz Oleś -- 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/aanlktil0pdsnzzoxhz7h29vgchihvpovxqg5adshc...@mail.gmail.com
[RESENT] Re: Xen for Squeeze, 3.4 or 4.0
Whoops, wrong recipient. 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 > Cons > - NUMA-mode only opt-in, no infos about stability > - Fails on several modern machines because of IO-APIC problems > > 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. > > Bastian > > Cc debian-devel, as there was quite a few discussions about this matter > in the last months. -- Vulcans worship peace above all. -- McCoy, "Return to Tomorrow", stardate 4768.3 -- 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/20100610155858.ga13...@wavehammer.waldi.eu.org
