I mean stable in a general way not for FreeBSD (didn't tried out it in PV yet).
tjado Am 20.06.2010 17:54, schrieb Guillaume Seigneuret: > I did try with Xen 4.0.0. > But more stable doesn't meens "suitable for production use" ... > I think the FreeBSD team has to work on its kernel to make it stable under > paravirtualized environment. > It's not really a question of Xen kernel version. > > Cordialement, > > Guillaume Seigneuret > > > > Network and System Security Architect > Web : http://www.omegacube.fr > Address : > Hôtel Technologique - BP 100 > Technopôle de Château Gombert > 13382 Marseille Cedex 13 > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Tjado Mäcke [mailto:[email protected]] > Envoyé : dimanche 20 juin 2010 16:28 > À : Guillaume Seigneuret > Cc : Pandu Poluan; [email protected] > Objet : Re: Paravirtualized FreeBSD 8 Guest on Citrix XenServer 5.5/5.6 Host > > Hi, > > which version did you use of 4.0? For me, 4.0.1-rc3-pre runs more stable > than 4.0.0. > Do you have some more information about the FreeBSD pv? Maybe i will try > this howto: http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=10268 > > tjado > > Am 20.06.2010 12:00, schrieb Guillaume Seigneuret: > >> You're welcome, yes I guess it's safer to keep them in standalone servers >> for the moment. >> For information I did try : >> >> FreeBSD 8 i386 paravirtualized on : >> >> - Xen 3.4.2 with a 2.6.32 Linux kernel >> - Xen 4.0 with a 2.6.32.12 Linux kernel >> >> FreeBSD 9 beta i386 paravirtualized on : >> >> - >> - Xen 3.4.2 with a 2.6.32 Linux kernel >> - Xen 4.0 with a 2.6.32.12 Linux kerne >> >> >> Configuration with mono CPU and 512/1024 Mo RAM, Disks on Dom0 LVM >> partitions. >> Plateforms : Dell T610, Dell R200, Dell R210. >> >> Cordialement, >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-xen To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
