Hello,
People here might be interested to know that Xen pvops dom0 core
was merged to upstream Linux kernel during the 2.6.37 merge window!
This has been in the works for a long time, so it's good news.
Note that this is the core/initial merge, there's more upstreaming
needed to get for example
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 11:47:49PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Bastian Blank dijo [Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 05:54:28PM +0200]:
Hi folks
I'm currently thinking about which version of Xen supporting in Squeeze.
There are two possibilities: 3.4 and 4.0. 3.4 is currently in testing
and unstable,
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:23:04PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Bastian Blank wa...@debian.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 05:54:28PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
I'm currently thinking about which version of Xen supporting in Squeeze.
There are two possibilities:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 09:55:58AM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 07:33:58AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
?ukasz Ole? wrote:
2010/6/10 Bastian Blank wa...@debian.org:
My personal preference would be to go with 4.0.
I completely agree. Probably more people
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 07:33:58AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
?ukasz Ole? wrote:
2010/6/10 Bastian Blank wa...@debian.org:
My personal preference would be to go with 4.0.
I completely agree. Probably more people will use pvops kernel with
4.0 instead 3.4, so hopefully it will be
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 03:40:40PM -0400, Micah Anderson wrote:
Nikita V. Youshchenko yo...@debian.org 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
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 yo...@debian.org writes:
We have had to carry that patch without any upstream support (or
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 01:34:24PM +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 07:01:59AM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 04:53:56PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Hi folks,
There was a thread here a little while back about the status of Xen in
future
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 07:01:59AM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 04:53:56PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Hi folks,
There was a thread here a little while back about the status of Xen in
future Debian releases. It left me rather confused, and I'm hoping to
find
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 05:10:55PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Pasi Kärkkäinen pa...@iki.fi 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
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 pa...@iki.fi 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
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?
Only by the
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 10:46:38AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 16:55:27 +1100, Brian May b...@snoopy.debian.net
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
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 fading
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 12:47:54PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Brian May b...@snoopy.debian.net 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
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/2009-12
Hello!
A new project called TigerVNC (http://tigervnc.org) has forked TightVNC.
Announcement here (Open Letter: Leaving TightVNC, Founding TigerVNC):
http://www.realvnc.com/pipermail/vnc-list/2009-February/059615.html
Fedora changed their default VNC from TightVNC to TigerVNC for upcoming
On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 07:07:54PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Hi,
Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
Next try: http://194.39.182.225/debian/xen/try4.
Hmm.. these packages are not available anymore?
URL changed?
Your local Debian sid mirror, e.g. package
xen-linux-system-2.6.26-1-xen-amd64
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 12:43:36PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 05:43:24PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
This kernel have a critical problem:
| Bad pte = 11764060, process = vsftpd, vm_flags = 100071, vaddr = b7f85000
| Pid: 8129, comm: vsftpd Not tainted
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 09:42:13AM +0200, Jan Wagner wrote:
Good morning,
On Wednesday 17 September 2008, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
since we have rolled out over 50 dom0 with etch, we are really interested
into having xen dom0 support in lenny.
So far I know you can run Lenny as a
- Forwarded message from Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Xen-devel [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Virtualization Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:51:37 -0700
Subject: [Xen-devel]
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 05:52:49PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
Hi!
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 01:04:45AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
right but still no excuse to bring in a patch set that is *known*
to not be merged upstream.
with our current options, loosing xen dom0 support IS a
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 09:09:52PM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
Bastian Blank wrote:
Xen got a often used technique in the last two years. All of the large
distributions got some sort of support for it. Debian Etch have full
support for it. There was several requests of various people
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 01:54:50AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 05:22:55PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
snip
Hopefully Jeremy Fitzhardinge (from Xensource) and others can get the
important Xen kernel features ported to pv_ops framework and integrated
into vanilla
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 03:40:38AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 11:12 +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 01:54:50AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 05:22:55PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
snip
Hopefully Jeremy Fitzhardinge
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 03:51:12AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 11:42 +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
I guess it was faster _now_, but they'll have to live with the forward
porting pain for years more now..
While this is true, the patches still allow
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:50:22AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 05:22:55PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
snip
Hopefully Jeremy Fitzhardinge (from Xensource) and others can get the
important Xen kernel features ported
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 12:35:09PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 12:51:21PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:50:22AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 05:22:55PM +0300
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:57:26AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 12:51 +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:50:22AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
see relevant posts of Ian Campbell on d-kernel
You mean this?: http://lists.debian.org/debian
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 02:23:26PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:57:26AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 12:51 +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:50:22AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
see relevant posts of Ian Campbell
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 07:11:06AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 12:35 +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 12:51:21PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:50:22AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Ben
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 02:11:48PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 07:11:06AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
Without dom0, lenny will be unusable for several installations of mine
which presently run an ugly combination of etch's dom0 and lenny's
kernel. I would
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 07:26:48PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 07:53:52PM +0300, Teodor wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Pasi Kärkkäinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
See: http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps
I think x86-64 xen patches
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 08:56:24PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 09:44:00PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 07:26:48PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 07:53:52PM +0300, Teodor wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 2:49 PM
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 01:08:23PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 12/07/08 at 19:39 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 12:10:28AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
We (Debian) should make a clear statement that users of Debian as dom0
will have at least one supported
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 02:54:09PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 15/07/08 at 14:01 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
Xen is just one solution to virtualisation. I may agree that a general
decision to support virtualisation on Debian could be a policy decision,
but
whether we'll support
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 09:24:08AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 15/07/08 at 14:01 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
- KVM: is very promising but is it really a valid alternative *now*
for current Xen users?
That is an interesting question. We are doing some research
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 12:49:07PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 09:24:08AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Xensource has a developer working on getting xen patches ported to Linux
pv_ops framework and integrated into upstream (vanilla) kernel
On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 02:46:09PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Daniel Widenfalk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ok, so dropping back a step. Let's assume that I build the 3.2.0 XEN
hypervisor and dom0 kernel using 2.6.18 as base. I should then be able to
build domU kernel(s) using the
On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 11:37:44PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I've been trying (with absolutely no success) to build XEN kernels using
the 2.6.25 kernel source tree. I've got 10 domU's and 2 dom0 that I want
to upgrade.
I've done
$ apt-get install linux-tree-2.5.26
$ tar
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 08:07:16AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 02:39:16PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
Not always true. Both paths can be active at the same time.. if supported by
the SAN array. Then you do also load balancing between the paths..
Quite true, though
true. Both paths can be active at the same time.. if supported by
the SAN array. Then you do also load balancing between the paths..
I'm currently using multipath with iSCSI SAN, using two active paths with
load balancing and failover.
So I'm also interested in this stuff..
- Pasi Kärkkäinen
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 03:25:10PM +0200, Gordon Grubert wrote:
Dear Debian developers,
it seems that there is a little problem with the NFS client
in Debian sarge. I hope this is the best place to post this
problem. I have discussed this on
Hello!
What's the status of newer imp packages for woody/sid?
- Pasi Kärkkäinen
^
. .
Linux
/-\
Choice.of.the
45 matches
Mail list logo
