Hi,
i used the Kernel 2.6.10 and Patch before.. this worked nice.
But now i upgraded my Kernel to the latest Version with the new vServer Patch on Kernel 2.6.11.5.
I also installed the latest Util-vServer...
Now when i try to enter my vserver i got this Problem
society:~/img # vserver test
Title: Message
how
stable is the 2.6 branch of vserver, would you run it in a production
envoirnment. If it is not very stable, would the instability affect the vservers
or the main server. In my case I have a large site that would benefit if some of
the services on it is in a vserver, so I
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 11:35:03AM +0200, Dennis Paulisch wrote:
Hi,
i used the Kernel 2.6.10 and Patch before.. this worked nice.
with what tools?
But now i upgraded my Kernel to the latest Version with the new
vServer Patch on Kernel 2.6.11.5.
which patch version?
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 12:41:58PM +0200, Ehab Heikal wrote:
how stable is the 2.6 branch of vserver, would you run it in a
production envoirnment.
it seems to be at least as stable as the 2.6 branch of the kernel
If it is not very stable, would the
instability
On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 12:41 +0200, Ehab Heikal wrote:
how stable is the 2.6 branch of vserver, would you run it in a
production envoirnment.
Stable is very relative definition [tm]
I've been using the 2.6 branch on two production servers for quite some
time now with no known problems. Actually,
Output from your Script...
Linux-VServer Test [V0.11] (C) 2003-2005 H.Poetzl
chcontext is working.
chbind is working.
Linux 2.6.11.5-vs1.9.5 i686/0.30.204/0.30.204 [Ea]
VCI: 0001:0025 273 0316
---
[001]# succeeded.
[011]# failed.
[031]# succeeded.
[101]# succeeded.
[102]# succeeded.
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 05:48:08PM +0200, Dennis Paulisch wrote:
Output from your Script...
Linux-VServer Test [V0.11] (C) 2003-2005 H.Poetzl
chcontext is working.
chbind is working.
Linux 2.6.11.5-vs1.9.5 i686/0.30.204/0.30.204 [Ea]
VCI: 0001:0025 273 0316
~~~
Herbert Poetzl wrote:
here is an example which simply fails on x86_64 when
compiled with dietlibc (0.27, 0.28, cvs, debian, fc3, suse ;)
[...]
$ diet gcc -o sysx sysx.c -lcompat
$ ./sysx
$ echo $?
236
What is the expected behaviour? With glibc I'm getting:
# ./sysx
ret = 65573
On Monday 11 April 2005 00:35, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 12:05:48AM +0200, Georges Toth wrote:
kernel: 2.6.11.6
patch: 1.9.5
util-vserver: 0.30.205
using: dietlibc-0.28
Any idea ?
yup .. get a new dietlibc, the right compiler and
fixed tools, it should work
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 10:54:38AM +1200, Michal Ludvig wrote:
Herbert Poetzl wrote:
here is an example which simply fails on x86_64 when
compiled with dietlibc (0.27, 0.28, cvs, debian, fc3, suse ;)
[...]
$ diet gcc -o sysx sysx.c -lcompat
$ ./sysx
$ echo $?
236
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 11:09:09AM +1200, Michal Ludvig wrote:
Herbert Poetzl wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 10:29:17AM +1200, Michal Ludvig wrote:
Tell me if you need something more.
no, thanks I already figured it, the dietlibc needs
patching as the syscall(2) for x86_64 isn't
11 matches
Mail list logo
