Hi,
just found:
PSARC/2010/250 EOF of Solaris xVM dom0 approved.
So does this mean, Xen is officially dead on Solaris?
Regards,
jel.
--
Otto-von-Guericke University http://www.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/
Department of Computer Science Geb. 29 R 027, Universitaetsplatz 2
39106
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 11:26:13AM -0500, Jacob Ritorto wrote:
Speculation:
Surely after going to such great lengths to acquire unix,
they'd not continue to try to shoehorn Linux into an enterprise
posture, would they?
Who knows? Having an OS, where one can twiddle any knobs at wish
Hi,
wondering what Oracle's intention is wrt. to Solaris/Xen on x86. For me it
looks like, that Oracle has no intention to further invest in development
of Solaris as Dom0 but is rather focused on its Linux? based x86 OVM ...
Does anybody have other information?
Regards,
jel.
--
Hi,
just upgraded a machine from snv_b98 to snv_b125. Unfortunately domUs do
not start anymore:
# virsh start win2008ss
error: Failed to start domain win2008ss
error: POST operation failed: xend_post: error from xen daemon:
(xend.err 'signed integer is greater than maximum')
xen.log:
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 07:26:46PM +0200, Florian Manschwetus wrote:
Am 16.10.2009 18:07, schrieb Jens Elkner:
...
No problems wrt. stability for ~1 year, as long as one gives not
more than 1 vcpu to Win DomU (but this is snv_b98 - not sure, whether
it is fixed in more recent versions
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 02:01:13PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 01:46:53PM +0100, J. Landamore wrote:
...
I'd like to upgrade the Dom0 to b122 but not rebuild the DomUs. Below
is a typical DomU xml dump. Is there anything obvious that will bite
me in upgrading from 113
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 12:18:47AM +0100, John Levon wrote:
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 12:57:33AM +0200, Jens Elkner wrote:
There shouldn't be any problems (I know of one compatibility problem,
but it's obscure and won't affect you)
Can you eleborate a little bit on this (my current
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 01:39:10AM +0100, John Levon wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 06:28:13PM +0200, Jens Elkner wrote:
elkner.sol ~ + virsh list
Id Name State
--
0 Domain-0 running
1 win2003sbs running
2
Hi,
im trying to attach another volume aka disk to win HVM, however it
doesn't seem to work:
+ xm block-attach win2008ss phy:/dev/zvol/dsk/pool1/win2008ss.dsk2 \
hdd:disk w 0
results in:
elkner.sol ~ + xm block-list win2008ss --long
(0
(vbd
(uuid
Hi,
elkner.sol ~ + virsh list
Id Name State
--
0 Domain-0 running
1 win2003sbs running
2 win2008ssblocked
Unfortunately a 'virsh shutdown win2003sbs' does nothing - the domain
keeps running. Since one can't
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 11:18:11AM -0700, Joseph Mocker wrote:
Did you try xm destroy or virsh destroy.
None of them yet, since - if I understand the man pages correctly - I
would need to re-install the domain again (which takes ~ 3-4 hours :( ).
The shutdown of the Dom-U
won't be graceful,
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 12:53:49PM -0700, Joseph Mocker wrote:
I think you are misreading the man pages. What statements make you
believe this? All I see is a statement saying they are like abruptly
removing the power from a physical machine.
Verflixt - probably doing too much zfs
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 09:35:54PM -0700, Russ Blaine wrote:
This is:
6740122 win2k8 with --vcpus 1 blue screen 0x101
I'm working on the fix. BTW, for server 2008, use --os-variant=vista.
Ahhh - ok - thanx a lot!
To find a workaround I installed win2008 with 1 CPU, than added
all recent
Hi,
when installing windows server 2008 Std hvm I get always a blue screen
telling me:
'a clock interrupt was not received on a secondary processor within the
allocated time interval'
I googled around and found, that this occured with vista as well:
Hi,
just trying to install Win 2003 Server Small Business Edition on a
X4600M2 with snv_b98, ZFS root mirror of 2 SAS HDD on a ZFS vol on
a 2nd ZFS mirror with 2 SAS HDDs and 16 GB RAM (4 x Dual-Core AMD
Opteron(tm) Processor 8222).
However, it is unbelievable slow - 5 hours now and still on
15 matches
Mail list logo
