On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 9:42 PM, Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
> Seems that my CDrom block was a problem.
> But the disk is already build, so I just skipped that.
Yes, even in git libvirt-bhyve doesn't work well with >1 disk :-(.
> But thing do not generate a lot of logging. :(
> Not even with debu
On 26-10-2014 1:37, Conrad Meyer wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
>> Hoi
>>
>> I tried the version on the libvirt.org/bhyve page.
>> But that returns:
>>
>> freetest# virsh -c "bhyve:///system" domxml-to-native \\
>> --format bhyve-argv --xml /root/libv
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Willem Jan Withagen
wrote:
>
> So I was wondering if somebody would like to share his working example?
>
>
Hi,
Take a look at these slides:
http://www.slideshare.net/CraigRodrigues1/libvirt-bhyve
on slide 8, I have a pointer to a working libvirt xml example.
-
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
> I tried to integrate this patch into 10.1_RC3 and I failed. Is there a
> timeframe to MFC this to 10.1 or 10-STABLE?
>
It will be MFCed to 10-STABLE but I don't have a specific time frame in mind.
I'll guess that it'll be towards
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
> Hoi
>
> I tried the version on the libvirt.org/bhyve page.
> But that returns:
>
> freetest# virsh -c "bhyve:///system" domxml-to-native \\
> --format bhyve-argv --xml /root/libvirt-example.xml
> error: unsupported configuratio
I tried to integrate this patch into 10.1_RC3 and I failed. Is there a
timeframe to MFC this to 10.1 or 10-STABLE?
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Benjamin Perrault
wrote:
> After a few days of extensive testing and abuse, i’ve run into no new
> issues or unknowns what so ever. Everything that
Hoi
I tried the version on the libvirt.org/bhyve page.
But that returns:
freetest# virsh -c "bhyve:///system" domxml-to-native \\
--format bhyve-argv --xml /root/libvirt-example.xml
error: unsupported configuration: unsupported disk device
So I was wondering if somebody would like to sh
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Oct 25, 2014, at 13:20, K. Macy wrote:
>
> Alan also suggested against integrating the test suite as-is, because as
> he said, "Remember, don't run these tests on a production system. They
> WILL cause panics and deadlocks
On Oct 25, 2014, at 13:20, K. Macy wrote:
Alan also suggested against integrating the test suite as-is, because as
he said, "Remember, don't run these tests on a production system. They
WILL cause panics and deadlocks, and they may cause data loss too.”
Cheers,
-
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 1:20 PM, K. Macy wrote:
Alan also suggested against integrating the test suite as-is, because as
he said, "Remember, don't run these tests on a production system. They
WILL cause panics and deadlocks, and they may cause data loss too.”
Cheers,
>>
>>> Alan also suggested against integrating the test suite as-is, because as he
>>> said, "Remember, don't run these tests on a production system. They WILL
>>> cause panics and deadlocks, and they may cause data loss too.”
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Garrett
>>
>> Wait, we want to sweep those bugs und
On 25-10-2014 1:21, Peter Grehan wrote:
> Hi Willem,
>> And then booted a 10-STABLE bhyve VM with all memory and processors
>> assigned to the VM. So all the power could be available to the VM.
>
> You'll most likely want to keep some memory and processor resources
> available for the host system
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Alfred Perlstein
wrote:
>
> On 10/24/14 9:45 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>
>> I think getting tools/regression/zfs working first would be a better idea
>> (which means that ZFS developers will need to go debug/fix the issue noted
>> in https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugz
13 matches
Mail list logo