Thanks for the quick response Jan. You may want to check your mail client's word-wrap settings. :) I understand the PAE decision and appreciate the reasoning.
/Brian/ On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 10:39 -0500, Jan Mark Holzer wrote: > Hi Brian, > > the decision to only support PAE capable hosts was made at the end > of the FC5 cycle. The majority (if not all) > of server in customer datacenters/environments are PAE capable today > and the only edge case for non-PAE > support would have been "older" laptops which do not yet have PAE > capable processors. > It also would have been an additional burden for QA/QE to > test/certify older non-PAE capable servers. > As the use case for Xen is certainly geared towards servers and not > laptops this made a lot of sense. > However there are quite a number of folks with laptops which do not > support PAE and at this time you > have two options. either get a PAE capable laptop :) or you could > build your own customer kernel-xen/Xen > packages/RPMs and disable PAE for them. > However the use case for a non-PAE installation is pretty limited as > you'd also have to build your > own installation tree with a non-PAE PV guest etc.... > > Hth, > > Jan > > Brian Long wrote: > > Can someone more familiar with Xen development help me understand why > > PAE extensions are now required? I remember running FC rawhide Xen on > > my IBM Thinkpad 42P (Intel Pentium M w/o PAE) and I got paravirt working > > (6-9 months ago, I believe). Now it seems PAE is hard-coded in the RHEL > > 5 and FC6 kernels so I'm SOL. > > > > Thanks. > > > > /Brian/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > rhelv5-beta-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list -- Brian Long | | IT Infrastructure . | | | . | | | . Data Center Systems ' ' Cisco Enterprise Linux C I S C O _______________________________________________ rhelv5-beta-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list
