Re: 9.1R?

2013-01-10 Thread Mark Felder
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:36:54 +0900 moto kawasaki wrote: > It might be better to disable rxcsum, txcsum, and lro, too. > My understanding is the point is the 'NIC hardware' is not the real > one but emulation by Xen Host, so that those 'off loading' makes > context switch storm between domU and do

Re: 9.1R?

2012-12-30 Thread Egoitz Aurrekoetxea
On 26/12/12 21:00, Mark Felder wrote: On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:17:25 +0900 moto kawasaki wrote: Official Support of FreeBSD as domU. # Didn't someone talk about it on this ML ?? or my imagination ?? I've mentioned it. The domU tools scripts are being redesigned to be more platform agnostic and

Re: 9.1R?

2012-12-28 Thread Mark Felder
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:17:25 +0900 moto kawasaki wrote: > Official Support of FreeBSD as domU. > # Didn't someone talk about it on this ML ?? or my imagination ?? I've mentioned it. The domU tools scripts are being redesigned to be more platform agnostic and a guy on that team at Citrix has bee

Re: 9.1R?

2012-12-25 Thread moto kawasaki
Jay, I wanted to mention "XenServer Tools", from Citrix, as a part of Official Support of FreeBSD as domU. # Didn't someone talk about it on this ML ?? or my imagination ?? Thank you! jwest> Moto wrote... jwest> >looking forward to FreeBSD 9.1 and Citrix official xen-tool for FreeBSD :-) jwest

RE: 9.1R?

2012-12-25 Thread Jay West
Moto wrote... >looking forward to FreeBSD 9.1 and Citrix official xen-tool for FreeBSD :-) "official" xen support at 9.1 doesn't currently exist. As I understand it... that's on the drawing board (including dom0 support) for release 10. ___ freebsd-xen

RE: 9.1R?

2012-12-25 Thread Jay West
Mark wrote >You're not running XCP or XenServer. That's why you don't have those bugs. Exactly. I can confirm the bugs previously mentioned definitely exist and are 100% reproduceable. ___ freebsd-xen@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.

RE: 9.1R?

2012-12-25 Thread Jay West
>Also, if you aren't aware, here is my personal list of Xen bugs: - Shutdown via Xen fails to poweroff. It doesn't issue any normal shutdown commands, but tells the Xen code in the kernel to start a shutdown. It's broken on the kernel side. kern/171118 Also, NetBSD's workaround for this is t

Re: 9.1R?

2012-12-23 Thread moto kawasaki
Thank you very much for your list of bugs. I am running FreeBSD 8.2/9.0 (amd64 XENHVM) on XenServer 5.6SP2/6.0.2/6.1, feld> Also, if you aren't aware, here is my personal list of Xen bugs: feld> feld> - Shutdown via Xen fails to poweroff. It doesn't issue any normal shutdown commands, feld>

Re: 9.1R?

2012-12-22 Thread Mark Felder
You're not running XCP or XenServer. That's why you don't have those bugs. ___ freebsd-xen@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-xen To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-xen-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: 9.1R?

2012-12-22 Thread Hugo Silva
On 12/22/12 07:29, Mark Felder wrote: > On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 12:26:36 -0600 > Jay West wrote: > >> All our FreeBSD use is now under Xenserver 6.1. I was curious, given the >> port of xe-guest-utilities that allows online migrations and such. after >> installing those tools (thus PVM/64), should we

Re: 9.1R?

2012-12-21 Thread Mark Felder
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 12:26:36 -0600 Jay West wrote: > All our FreeBSD use is now under Xenserver 6.1. I was curious, given the > port of xe-guest-utilities that allows online migrations and such. after > installing those tools (thus PVM/64), should we be changing our mount points > to refer to the