> Novell is actively developing their SLES11 2.6.27 kernel-xen,
> and upcoming SLES11 SP1 will have 2.6.32 kernel-xen.
I did not know that.
> > > 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
> > ker
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
> > > >
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
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
"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 th
Ian Campbell writes:
> On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 17:10 +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
On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 17:10 +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,
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 Kärkkäine
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
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.xensourc
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?
> >
>
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 Xe
I think you are addressing the wrong list. This is
debian-devel, for discussion of Debian development.
Your question is off-topic here. Please try one of
the debian-user mailing lists instead.
As a second point, you have replied to an unrelated
message on debian-devel and referenced the unrelated
Good day list,
Is anyone else having a problem with the latest squeeze update of
gnome-panel?
When booting up, the entire desktop shows, icons and everything, and you can
work on it. But the panels take almost 5 minutes to come up... after that
it's fine. Anyone else experiencing this?
Regards
> 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
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 09:42:53PM +0300, 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
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
On Mon, 2010-01-04 at 10:38 +1100, Brian May wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 09:49:24PM +0300, William Pitcock wrote:
> > > Xen is unsupportable due to clueless upstream, who has been in a
> > > constant FAIL state regarding support of current kernels for years.
> >
> > Do you have any proof for
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 J
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 09:49:24PM +0300, William Pitcock wrote:
> > Xen is unsupportable due to clueless upstream, who has been in a
> > constant FAIL state regarding support of current kernels for years.
>
> Do you have any proof for this claim? xen.git seems pretty up to date to
> me (2.6.31.6
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 11:26:34AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 04:55:27PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 01:21:55AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > I believe we will have Xen hypervisor and Linux dom0 packages, but they
> > > will not be supported to
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 referen
- "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
- "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 ha
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
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 stro
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 f
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
Brian May, le Sun 03 Jan 2010 16:48:06 +1100, a écrit :
> 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 Q
Brian May writes:
> http://blog.orebokech.com/2007/05/xen-security-or-lack-thereof.html links to
> http://taviso.decsystem.org/virtsec.pdf.
> I don't know for certain this applies to KVM, however I would assume so.
Only to a certain extent. Nowadays Linux guests in KVM use virtio
for disk/netwo
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 04:55:27PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 01:21:55AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > I believe we will have Xen hypervisor and Linux dom0 packages, but they
> > will not be supported to the degree that ordinary kernel packages are.
> I can't see any Xen ke
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.
Bastian
--
What kind of love is that? Not to be loved;
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 s
On Sun, 3 Jan 2010, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> It does require virtualisation extensions, but most x86 processors sold in
> the last few years have them.
My SE Linux Play Machine is currently running on a P3-800 system with 256M of
RAM. I would like to continue running on that hardware until someon
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 01:21:55AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> I believe we will have Xen hypervisor and Linux dom0 packages, but they
> will not be supported to the degree that ordinary kernel packages are.
I can't see any Xen kernel in Squeeze with support for Xen. Am I blind?
I don't see the
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 referen
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?
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 12:01:40PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
>> 2) I believe KVM needs CPU support, and this is not yet available on all
>> modern computers.
>
> It does require virtualisation extensions, but most x86 processors sold in
> the la
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 12:01:40PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have heard rumours that Xen is not going to be supported on Squeeze in
> favour
> of KVM. True or False?
I believe we will have Xen hypervisor and Linux dom0 packages, but they
will not be supported to the degree that ordi
Hello,
I have heard rumours that Xen is not going to be supported on Squeeze in favour
of KVM. True or False?
The reason I am concerned is:
1) I believe Xen, with paravirtualization (that is without QEMU) is more secure
then KVM (or Xen) with QEMU.
2) I believe KVM needs CPU support, and this i
40 matches
Mail list logo
