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 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 sharing
with Novell, which eventually released SLES 11 with 2.6.27). As
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
Novell is actively developing their SLES11 2.6.27 kernel-xen,
and upcoming SLES11 SP1 will have 2.6.32 kernel-xen.
I did not know that.
vcpu pinning is not required for a properly working kernel..
It shouldn't be, I agree... but it seems like it is required to keep the
kernel from a
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 lenny are very buggy, particularly
for domains with multiple vCPUs
On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 17:10 +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 dom0
Ian Campbell i...@hellion.org.uk writes:
On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 17:10 +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
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 dom0 here, then
that's
in progress, see:
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 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 kernel folks which believe all of the crap that the KVM
guys say about Xen.
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
I think you are addressing the wrong list. This is
debian-devel, for discussion of Debian development.
Your question is off-topic here. Please try one of
the debian-user mailing lists instead.
As a second point, you have replied to an unrelated
message on debian-devel and referenced the unrelated
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 09:42:53PM +0300, 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 kernel folks which believe all of the crap that the KVM
guys
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 lenny are very buggy, particularly
for domains with multiple vCPUs (though that *may* be fixed now).
Unfortunately it
Good day list,
Is anyone else having a problem with the latest squeeze update of
gnome-panel?
When booting up, the entire desktop shows, icons and everything, and you can
work on it. But the panels take almost 5 minutes to come up... after that
it's fine. Anyone else experiencing this?
On Sun, 3 Jan 2010, Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk wrote:
It does require virtualisation extensions, but most x86 processors sold in
the last few years have them.
My SE Linux Play Machine is currently running on a P3-800 system with 256M of
RAM. I would like to continue running on that
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 unsupportable due to clueless upstream, who has been in a
constant
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 behind.
Bastian
--
What kind of love is that? Not to be loved;
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 04:55:27PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 01:21:55AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
I believe we will have Xen hypervisor and Linux dom0 packages, but they
will not be supported to the degree that ordinary kernel packages are.
I can't see any Xen kernel
Brian May b...@snoopy.debian.net writes:
http://blog.orebokech.com/2007/05/xen-security-or-lack-thereof.html links to
http://taviso.decsystem.org/virtsec.pdf.
I don't know for certain this applies to KVM, however I would assume so.
Only to a certain extent. Nowadays Linux guests in KVM use
Brian May, le Sun 03 Jan 2010 16:48:06 +1100, a écrit :
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
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 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 patches still need to get merged upstream.
That was opposed quite
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
- Marc Haber mh+debian-de...@zugschlus.de 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
- Gabor Gombas gomb...@sztaki.hu 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 patches still need
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 Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 11:26:34AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 04:55:27PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 01:21:55AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
I believe we will have Xen hypervisor and Linux dom0 packages, but they
will not be supported to the
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 09:49:24PM +0300, William Pitcock wrote:
Xen is unsupportable due to clueless upstream, who has been in a
constant FAIL state regarding support of current kernels for years.
Do you have any proof for this claim? xen.git seems pretty up to date to
me (2.6.31.6), and
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/msg01127.html
the 2.6.32 tree should be available shortly after Jeremy
On Mon, 2010-01-04 at 10:38 +1100, Brian May wrote:
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 09:49:24PM +0300, William Pitcock wrote:
Xen is unsupportable due to clueless upstream, who has been in a
constant FAIL state regarding support of current kernels for years.
Do you have any proof for this
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:
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 12:01:40PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
Hello,
I have heard rumours that Xen is not going to be supported on Squeeze in
favour
of KVM. True or False?
I believe we will have Xen hypervisor and Linux dom0 packages, but they
will not be supported to the degree that ordinary
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk wrote:
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 12:01:40PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
2) I believe KVM needs CPU support, and this is not yet available on all
modern computers.
It does require virtualisation extensions, but most x86 processors
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 have any references to support this?
--
bye,
pabs
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 Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 01:21:55AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
I believe we will have Xen hypervisor and Linux dom0 packages, but they
will not be supported to the degree that ordinary kernel packages are.
I can't see any Xen kernel in Squeeze with support for Xen. Am I blind?
I don't see the
39 matches
Mail list logo
