Re: May be a bug in SL-60-i386-2011-03-03-Everything-DVD1.iso
On 04/15/2011 03:29 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 7:47 AM, Vaclav Moceklittle@email.cz wrote: On 04/14/2011 05:24 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: You need to go *straight* to VMWare. Do not stop at Xen, do not stop at KVM. Go right to commercial grade support, and install an ESX server if you can. Why should the better choice be ESX than KVM for somebody who is familiar with Linux? Seriously, I am building my first server for virtualisation and KVM works out of the box /two days ;-) /. Becasue libvirt was designed by goats who'd been sniffing too many pheromones. Let's just say that they were not paying attention to Eric Raymond's guidelines on open source GUI's (http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cups-horror.html) and leave it at that. Our favorite upstream vendor is usually quite good at writing gui's, having learned a lot of lessons over the years and having strong developers. libvirt is not one of their shining efforts. It looks like you complain about GUI tools, which are provided with libvirt (it is a library). Honestly, I expected some technical things KVM versus ESX. I don't think, that the GUI is a major problem, it is a matter of personal taste. I have no problem with the default GUI interface and I enjoy using Python's libvirt bindings in scripts. VMWare, especially its LabManager suite with which I've worked recently, does a much more thorough job. It's not perfect: the update of VMwareTools with kernel updates is hardly perfect, and its interactions with the NetworkManager of SL 6 and RHEL 6 are not good. But I'm not thrilled with NetworkManager in servers or managed environments, either. Well, may be for static servers, using laptops without NetworkManager would be pain. I've heard good things about KVM performance, but didn't see it in RHEL/CentOS/SL 5.x. I'll be very intersted to see the results of the Debian testing I'm doing in the near future. I use 6.x KVM and performance is really good. Debian? My experience is that almost all things being developed by Red Had, are much worse integrated in Debian [Lenny|Squeeze]: SELinux, Network Manager, Package Kit, KVM ... Vaclav M.
Re: May be a bug in SL-60-i386-2011-03-03-Everything-DVD1.iso
Le 15/04/2011 04:29, Nico Kadel-Garcia a écrit : I've heard good things about KVM performance, but didn't see it in RHEL/CentOS/SL 5.x. I'll be very intersted to see the results of the Debian testing I'm doing in the near future. Hi Nico, Just for curiosity, what do you consider as KVM solution under Debian ? Alain -- == Alain Péan - LPP/CNRS Administrateur Système/Réseau Laboratoire de Physique des Plasmas - UMR 7648 Observatoire de Saint-Maur 4, av de Neptune, Bat. A 94100 Saint-Maur des Fossés Tel : 01-45-11-42-39 - Fax : 01-48-89-44-33 ==
Re: May be a bug in SL-60-i386-2011-03-03-Everything-DVD1.iso
Hi, Todd KVM unders SL5/6 works quite nice for windows guests, including terminal session into them. Virt-manager console is noticeably slow, and has at least one annoying bug (when win7 guest prompts you to chose whether your network is home or work or internet, virt-manager freezes ad needs to be killed). But rdp session runs just fine. Bridge networking - not sure what do you mean. When you install kvm and ibvirt, a virtual bridge is created for you as a default network. It provides guests dhcp address in a private network withing the host and NATed access to internet. This all works with no additional config on your side. If you need your guests to be on the same network(s) as your host system, then you need to create an appropriate bridge yourself, outside of KVM and libvirt, but then libvirt will happily use it. Works like a charm with VLANs as well. So, if you project is kind of virtual desktop infrastructure, then I'd really suggest you look at kvm... cheers Artem. I have heard that VB's interface is better. I have also heard that Red Hat is cleaning up theirs. I will see. VB use to use the same bridge networking. I do believe I kept a copy of it around somewhere. It would be nice if KVM handled bridge networking automatically the way VB does. I will suffer a difficult interface for fewer bugs in operation. -T
Re: May be a bug in SL-60-i386-2011-03-03-Everything-DVD1.iso
On 04/14/2011 04:41 PM, jdow wrote:
On 2011/04/13 13:08, Todd And Margo Chester wrote:
On 04/13/2011 12:38 PM, Phil Schaffner wrote:
Can't say it is perfect, but riddled with bugs seems a bit
exaggerated.
My overall experiences with VB have been very positive.
Phil
Not exaggerated. Years of pain and experience.
Wait until you get your job threatened over it. Fortunately, as a
consultant, they are not my only customer. If loose them, I will
have to hustle and find someone else. Still sucks though, especially
when you have worked for them for over ten years and you
have become friends with many of them.
-T
A collection of some of my recent bug reports.
http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/7628
http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/7643
http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/7607
http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/7948
http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/7957
http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/7772
And the one I almost got and still may get fired over:
http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/8478
Is there any reason you are stubbornly playing with 3.0.12 and
not upgrading to the latest build? It seems to correct all of
the problems I had with the earlier builds. The machines translate
in directly and just work.
{^_^} Joanne Dow.
Hi Joanne,
just work. Oh boy.
4.0.2 is slower than h--- on my XP guest at my office. I had rip 4.0.2
out and reinstall 3.2.12. There are also benchmarks out there showing
4 to be slower than 3.
Also, I do check the change logs for fixes to my bugs. 4.x
did not fix a single issue of mine. You are blessed that Oracle fixes
your. I wish they would fix mine.
I also ask on my bug reports and they do/did not answer me.
Don't remember if I have asked lately.
It is also my experience with VB bugs that when a new revision hits
and they thinks they have fixed something, that they ask me to
test it. They had not asked me on any of these bugs.
And to be completely honest, after calling all over Oracle trying
to find a support contract, I have lost confidence in Oracle.
The last on this issue is that they (Oracle) do not have a pricing
schedule
for VB support yet and do not know when they will. Oh yes, and they will
reach out to me. Eeee! I did finally ask a sales rep to
stop using that term, as it gave me the creeps, and he did respect
it, somewhat.
My VM's out there are production level machines. To answer your
question as to why I am holding out, I am holding out with 3.2.12
for the same reason are running Enterprise Linux and not Fedora
Core. I can not have any (more) screw ups.
Hope that explains it,
-T
p.s. on the other hand, I have a great deal of confidence in Red Hat
and if feasible, I am going to move all my VM's over to KVM. Poking
around on their developers mailing list shows a tremendous amount
of development. No foot dragging or dumb looks there.
Re: May be a bug in SL-60-i386-2011-03-03-Everything-DVD1.iso
On 04/14/2011 05:24 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: You need to go *straight* to VMWare. Do not stop at Xen, do not stop at KVM. Go right to commercial grade support, and install an ESX server if you can. Why should the better choice be ESX than KVM for somebody who is familiar with Linux? Seriously, I am building my first server for virtualisation and KVM works out of the box /two days ;-) /. Vaclav M.
Re: May be a bug in SL-60-i386-2011-03-03-Everything-DVD1.iso
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Vaclav Mocek little@email.cz wrote: On 04/14/2011 05:24 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: You need to go *straight* to VMWare. Do not stop at Xen, do not stop at KVM. Go right to commercial grade support, and install an ESX server if you can. Why should the better choice be ESX than KVM for somebody who is familiar with Linux? If you need to ask then you have not (seriously) used ESX(i) ;-) The differences are (still) so big, it's not even funny. -- natxo
Re: May be a bug in SL-60-i386-2011-03-03-Everything-DVD1.iso
On 04/14/2011 03:08 PM, Natxo Asenjo wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Vaclav Moceklittle@email.cz wrote: On 04/14/2011 05:24 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: You need to go *straight* to VMWare. Do not stop at Xen, do not stop at KVM. Go right to commercial grade support, and install an ESX server if you can. Why should the better choice be ESX than KVM for somebody who is familiar with Linux? If you need to ask then you have not (seriously) used ESX(i) ;-) The differences are (still) so big, it's not even funny. You are right, I have not used ESX yet. I was looking for some comparison ESX versus KVM, but what I found, was mostly outdated. The one of newest is http://blog.delouw.ch/tag/kvm/ and the described drawbacks should not be a huge issue for an average user, not mentioned the fact, that RH is working to improve KVM. Vackav M.
Re: May be a bug in SL-60-i386-2011-03-03-Everything-DVD1.iso
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 7:47 AM, Vaclav Mocek little@email.cz wrote: On 04/14/2011 05:24 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: You need to go *straight* to VMWare. Do not stop at Xen, do not stop at KVM. Go right to commercial grade support, and install an ESX server if you can. Why should the better choice be ESX than KVM for somebody who is familiar with Linux? Seriously, I am building my first server for virtualisation and KVM works out of the box /two days ;-) /. Becasue libvirt was designed by goats who'd been sniffing too many pheromones. Let's just say that they were not paying attention to Eric Raymond's guidelines on open source GUI's (http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cups-horror.html) and leave it at that. Our favorite upstream vendor is usually quite good at writing gui's, having learned a lot of lessons over the years and having strong developers. libvirt is not one of their shining efforts. VMWare, especially its LabManager suite with which I've worked recently, does a much more thorough job. It's not perfect: the update of VMwareTools with kernel updates is hardly perfect, and its interactions with the NetworkManager of SL 6 and RHEL 6 are not good. But I'm not thrilled with NetworkManager in servers or managed environments, either. I've heard good things about KVM performance, but didn't see it in RHEL/CentOS/SL 5.x. I'll be very intersted to see the results of the Debian testing I'm doing in the near future.
Re: May be a bug in SL-60-i386-2011-03-03-Everything-DVD1.iso
On 04/13/2011 08:11 AM, Stefano Canepa wrote: Hi all, I'm new t Scientific Linux but not to Linux, I'm trying SL because I'm looking for a RHEL 6 free distribution and at CentOS they are still working. I tried to install using SL-60-i386-2011-03-03-Everything-DVD1.iso into a VirtualBox virtual machine. I verified the ISO using sha256sum and also inside installer but it stops installing MAKEDEV claiming it is corrupted on DVD. I tried to download the same image using a different mirror (switch.ch) instead the main FTP site, and even a different PC but the same happened. I successfully installed using the Install DVD. I mounted the two ISO in loopback and check the content MAKEDEV rpm is present in the Everything DVD and not in the Install. I even don't understand why MAKEDEV is needed as SL use udev to populate /dev, so perhaps to disable the installation in Everything DVD would be the correct solution. Is this a known bug? I can do some more test if needed. Bye Stefano Hi Stefano, Not to ask a too stupid question, but did you check your md5sums? b37209879c0fb158fac25045527241ee CentOS-5.6-x86_64-bin-DVD-1of2.iso 3eb277f8ca8d49cc8fcaf76d647169c4 CentOS-5.6-x86_64-bin-DVD-2of2.iso Also, I find in Virtual Box, that mounting the ISO's as a DVD/CD device works better than using a loop back device. From the Console, 1st: file, virtual media manager, attach your two iso's 2nd: go to the VM's icon, Settings, Storage, connect a IDE port to both ISO's Also, Virtual Box is riddled with bugs. Try posting on their forum and see if anyone else is having the problem. HTH, -T Stefano
Re: May be a bug in SL-60-i386-2011-03-03-Everything-DVD1.iso
Stefano Canepa wrote on 04/13/2011 11:11 AM: ... I tried to install using SL-60-i386-2011-03-03-Everything-DVD1.iso into a VirtualBox virtual machine. I verified the ISO using sha256sum and also inside installer but it stops installing MAKEDEV claiming it is corrupted on DVD. I have done multiple installs using the Everything ISOs mounted on the CD/DVD device on VirtualBox 4.0.4 without encountering any issues. What VB version are you using? Todd And Margo Chester wrote on 04/13/2011 02:30 PM: ... Also, Virtual Box is riddled with bugs. Can't say it is perfect, but riddled with bugs seems a bit exaggerated. My overall experiences with VB have been very positive. Phil
Re: May be a bug in SL-60-i386-2011-03-03-Everything-DVD1.iso
On 04/13/2011 12:38 PM, Phil Schaffner wrote: Can't say it is perfect, but riddled with bugs seems a bit exaggerated. My overall experiences with VB have been very positive. Phil Not exaggerated. Years of pain and experience. Wait until you get your job threatened over it. Fortunately, as a consultant, they are not my only customer. If loose them, I will have to hustle and find someone else. Still sucks though, especially when you have worked for them for over ten years and you have become friends with many of them. -T A collection of some of my recent bug reports. http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/7628 http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/7643 http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/7607 http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/7948 http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/7957 http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/7772 And the one I almost got and still may get fired over: http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/8478
Re: May be a bug in SL-60-i386-2011-03-03-Everything-DVD1.iso
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Todd And Margo Chester toddandma...@gmail.com wrote: On 04/13/2011 12:38 PM, Phil Schaffner wrote: Can't say it is perfect, but riddled with bugs seems a bit exaggerated. My overall experiences with VB have been very positive. Phil Not exaggerated. Years of pain and experience. Wait until you get your job threatened over it. Fortunately, as a consultant, they are not my only customer. If loose them, I will have to hustle and find someone else. Still sucks though, especially when you have worked for them for over ten years and you have become friends with many of them. -T A collection of some of my recent bug reports. http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/7628 http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/7643 http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/7607 http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/7948 http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/7957 http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/7772 And the one I almost got and still may get fired over: http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/8478 These all seem to be version 3.x of VirtualBox, and with Windows guest operating systems. From your comments in them, it looks like you've been using Windows Terminal Servers. Do you have a support contract with Oracle? If not, for production servers, I'm afraid you really need one. Scientific Linux, and the various Red Hat based distributions, have been rock stable under VirtualBox for me for the last year. I'm quite pleased with it. The only reason I'd use VMWare is for LabManager or to virtualize SCO OpenServer (which I've had to do). I still avoid KVM where feasible, even under Red Hat or Scientific Linux 6.0. I still find the necessary bridge network manual configuraiton to be nutty for a production server, and the libvirt tools to be a poorly planned nad implemented attempt to merge distinct and incompatible virtualizaiton tools into a single interface. Give me the clean VirtualBox interface any day.
Re: May be a bug in SL-60-i386-2011-03-03-Everything-DVD1.iso
On 04/13/2011 07:35 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Todd And Margo Chester toddandma...@gmail.com wrote: On 04/13/2011 12:38 PM, Phil Schaffner wrote: Can't say it is perfect, but riddled with bugs seems a bit exaggerated. My overall experiences with VB have been very positive. Phil Not exaggerated. Years of pain and experience. Wait until you get your job threatened over it. Fortunately, as a consultant, they are not my only customer. If loose them, I will have to hustle and find someone else. Still sucks though, especially when you have worked for them for over ten years and you have become friends with many of them. -T A collection of some of my recent bug reports. http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/7628 http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/7643 http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/7607 http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/7948 http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/7957 http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/7772 And the one I almost got and still may get fired over: http://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/8478 These all seem to be version 3.x of VirtualBox, and with Windows guest operating systems. From your comments in them, it looks like you've been using Windows Terminal Servers. Yes it is Terminal Services (TS) most of the time. TS is a mess I would not wish on anyone. Windows is an unfortunate fact of my life. The only Linux customers I have are the ones I make myself. I have to eat, so I have to work on Windows. I wish I had more Linux customers, but if I want to make a living, I have to work on what my customer actually use. I tried VB 4.0.x, but it was so much slower that 3.2.12 with my XP guest that I ripped it back off and replaced it with 3.2.12. I will be trying KVM on a new server to see how it fares. Do you have a support contract with Oracle? If not, for production servers, I'm afraid you really need one. You are correct about the need. Unfortunately, Oracle does not offer support contracts on Virtual Box. You can not even purchase a single incident. Oracle's left hand does not know what their right hand is doing. I have spent endless hour with Oracle on the phone trying to get help. All I get it business psycobabble (they will reach out to me). Scientific Linux, and the various Red Hat based distributions, have been rock stable under VirtualBox for me for the last year. I'm quite pleased with it. The only reason I'd use VMWare is for LabManager or to virtualize SCO OpenServer (which I've had to do). I run Virtual Box under CentOS 5.5 hosts. Mostly x64 bit. I still avoid KVM where feasible, even under Red Hat or Scientific Linux 6.0. I still find the necessary bridge network manual configuraiton to be nutty for a production server, and the libvirt tools to be a poorly planned nad implemented attempt to merge distinct and incompatible virtualizaiton tools into a single interface. Give me the clean VirtualBox interface any day. I have heard that VB's interface is better. I have also heard that Red Hat is cleaning up theirs. I will see. VB use to use the same bridge networking. I do believe I kept a copy of it around somewhere. It would be nice if KVM handled bridge networking automatically the way VB does. I will suffer a difficult interface for fewer bugs in operation. -T
Re: May be a bug in SL-60-i386-2011-03-03-Everything-DVD1.iso
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:58 PM, Todd And Margo Chester toddandma...@gmail.com wrote: I tried VB 4.0.x, but it was so much slower that 3.2.12 with my XP guest that I ripped it back off and replaced it with 3.2.12. I will be trying KVM on a new server to see how it fares. You need to go *straight* to VMWare. Do not stop at Xen, do not stop at KVM. Go right to commercial grade support, and install an ESX server if you can.
