Hi,
I know that I'm a bit late...
On Thu, 10.06.2010 at 17:54:28 +0200, Bastian Blank wa...@debian.org wrote:
My personal preference would be to go with 4.0.
If it's one, then I opt for 4.0.
Thank you very much!
Kind regards,
--Toni++
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010, Toni Mueller t...@debian.org wrote:
On Thu, 10.06.2010 at 17:54:28 +0200, Bastian Blank wa...@debian.org
wrote:
My personal preference would be to go with 4.0.
If it's one, then I opt for 4.0.
I've got a few systems running Xen 4.0 now. It's working pretty well.
I've
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,
Russell Coker wrote:
Based on my experience with Xen I think that we should have both. Then if
one
doesn't work we can try the other.
I don't think having to do a double work is a good idea.
My impression of Xen stability is that trying two different versions and
hoping that one will
[3.4 vs. 4.0 ...]
Based on my experience with Xen I think that we should have both. Then if
one
doesn't work we can try the other.
My impression of Xen stability is that trying two different versions and
hoping that one will work is a good strategy for any given server.
Bastian,
PS It would be nice if we could get Grub2 updated to boot Xen
kernels. My SE
Linux Play Machine is offline right now because I messed up the Grub2
configuration so badly that it won't even give me a boot menu.
I'm running grub from squeeze with a hand-compiled xen
4.0.1-rcsomething.
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Thomas Goirand tho...@goirand.fr wrote:
Russell Coker wrote:
Based on my experience with Xen I think that we should have both. Then
if one doesn't work we can try the other.
I don't think having to do a double work is a good idea.
I agree that doubling the work is
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, James Harper james.har...@bendigoit.com.au wrote:
It would be nice if it could automatically detect xen kernels when you
update-grub it though... or maybe that's what you were asking? Adding a
custom section to the .d directory works but is a bit messy.
Yes, I applied a
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
Russell Coker wrote:
Sometimes you test two options and find that for some systems one works well
and for other systems the other works well. Then if both options are
available you can get most (maybe all) systems working well, but if one
option
isn't available then some systems don't
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, 4.0 is in experimental.
Are both releases supporting running as
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, 4.0 is in experimental.
Xen 3.4
===
Pros
- Proofed to be stable
Cons
- NUMA-mode only opt-in, no infos about stability
- Fails
Whoops, wrong recipient.
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: 3.4 and 4.0. 3.4 is currently in testing
and unstable, 4.0 is in experimental.
Xen 3.4
===
Pros
Le jeudi 10 juin 2010 à 17:54 +0200, Bastian Blank a écrit :
Xen 4.0
===
Pros
- NUMA
- More tested with the Kernel in Squeeze
Cons
- Quite new
My personal preference would be to go with 4.0.
Your description sounds like it will be a lot easier to support 4.0, so
unless there is a
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 better tested.
--
Łukasz Oleś
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Łukasz Oleś 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 better tested.
Hi Bastian,
I have been running Xen 4.0.0 on my laptop
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: 3.4 and 4.0. 3.4 is currently in testing
and unstable, 4.0 is in
19 matches
Mail list logo
