RE: [Users] New Kernel Patch

2010-01-18 Thread Dietmar Maurer
 - Dietmar Maurer diet...@proxmox.com wrote:
  Sorry, but so far we only tested on Debian Lenny. But I guess it
 works
  on Debian Squeeze as well.
 
 Suno, want to give that a try?

Just tested - 2.6.18 does not work with new udev (missing signalfd support).

- Dietmar

___
Users mailing list
Users@openvz.org
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/users


Re: [Users] New Kernel Patch

2010-01-18 Thread Marco d'Itri
On Jan 18, Dietmar Maurer diet...@proxmox.com wrote:

 What else is required for udev?
Major sysfs changes which I do not think can be backported.

-- 
ciao,
Marco
___
Users mailing list
Users@openvz.org
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/users


LXC-Users list. Was: Re: [Users] New Kernel Patch

2010-01-18 Thread Michael H. Warfield
Scott, et al...

On Sat, 2010-01-16 at 15:07 -0500, Scott Dowdle wrote:

 Wow, I'm really glad you gave the overview of LXC's current status. I
 am constantly asked about it and have yet to find a good source of
 information. I guess the mainline LXC developers have a mailing list
 but I was under the impression that it would be full of implimentation
 type discussions so I haven't joined it. Your posting is the most
 informative I've seen to date.

The LXC maintainers have now opened up a lxc-users list for user level
discussions like some of this.

The web page for users of the mailing list is: 

https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxc-users

There is also an email-based interface for users (not administrators)
of the list; you can get info about using it by sending a message
with just the word `help' as subject or in the body, to:

lxc-users-requ...@lists.sourceforge.net


Mike
-- 
Michael H. Warfield (AI4NB) | (770) 985-6132 |  m...@wittsend.com
   /\/\|=mhw=|\/\/  | (678) 463-0932 |  http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
   NIC whois: MHW9  | An optimist believes we live in the best of all
 PGP Key: 0x674627FF| possible worlds.  A pessimist is sure of it!


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Users mailing list
Users@openvz.org
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/users


Re: [Users] New Kernel Patch

2010-01-17 Thread Marco d'Itri
On Jan 17, Dietmar Maurer diet...@proxmox.com wrote:

 Wow, that is very bad news - I guess there will be a major blocker for 
 debian squeeze. What is the suggested workaround for people using older
 kernels?
You lose, there is no workaround.
This is relevant for all distributions.

-- 
ciao,
Marco
___
Users mailing list
Users@openvz.org
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/users


Re: [Users] New Kernel Patch

2010-01-17 Thread Mihamina Rakotomandimby
 Scott Dowdle dow...@montanalinux.org :
  I still wonder why you do not use debian ;-)  
 Probably for similar reasons you don't use Red Hat-based distros.

I  would be interested, in private, to your arguments :-)
If you already wrote it, just paste it here, please.

If not, then just forget my query.

-- 
   Architecte Informatique chez Blueline/Gulfsat:
Administration Systeme, Recherche  Developpement
+261 34 29 155 34 / +261 33 11 207 36
___
Users mailing list
Users@openvz.org
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/users


RE: [Users] New Kernel Patch

2010-01-16 Thread Dietmar Maurer
 What does that mean?  Well as is obvious to you, as time passes, the
 number of distributions that are appropriate to use as an OpenVZ host
 node is reduced... and it appears that RHEL and CentOS truly are the
 best distros to recommend for the host node.  As the type of fanboy I
 am, that does not frustrate me at all but I realise how frustrating
 that can be to others.  I would indeed call that a limitation.

We at Proxmox ended up compiling the RHEL kernel for Debian. So we now
have a Debian system with RHEL kernel and OpenVZ. So far that works
quite good.

- Dietmar

___
Users mailing list
Users@openvz.org
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/users


Re: [Users] New Kernel Patch

2010-01-16 Thread Michael H. Warfield

On Sat, 2010-01-16 at 09:19 -0500, Scott Dowdle wrote: 
 Suno,
 
 - Suno Ano suno@sunoano.org wrote:
  Currently (January 2010) mainline is in development for the .33
  release, .32 is stable and used by most Linux Distributions like for example
  Debian, Ubuntu, Suse, etc.
  
  From what it looks now Debian and Ubuntu are going into freeze for
  their next stable release in March 2010. Will there be an up-to-date OpenVZ
  kernel patch available by then? Debian is targeting to ship .32 with
  their next stable release called squeeze.
  
  In case OpenVZ will not be available on at least one of the major
  Linux distributions and its offsprings, no need to mention how horrid that
  would be ...
  
  I would love to see OpenVZ be available in Debian's next stable
  release since I am with no doubt an OpenVZ fanboy
  http://sunoano.name/ws/public_xhtml/openvz.html
 
: - Snip

 Of course I could be wrong with my assessment but if I'm not and you
 are stuck what what you see as an unfortunate situation... I wouldn't
 fault you for switching away from OpenVZ. The only thing that even
 comes close to a suitable candidate that I'm aware of is
 Linux-VServer. I haven't really been keeping up with Linux-VServer
 development but I believe that while they aren't interested in working
 with the mainline (they always want to be an out of tree patch), they
 do seem to be adapting Linux-VServer to each mainline kernel that
 comes out. The only problem is a new mainline kernel comes out every 3
 months and I'm not sure exactly how they balance that nor how
 successful they are at that. If anyone would like to provide a summary
 that explains exactly where Linux-VServer developement is (or a link
 to such), I don't think a few emails about Linux-VServer on the OpenVZ
 Users mailing list is going to hurt anything... but of course if
 anyone complains, feel free to email me!
 the info directly (dow...@montanalinux.org).

I use to use Linux-vserver years and years ago but when they broke IPv6
support moving from 1.x to 2.x I was forced to abandon Linux-vserver and
switch a number of VM's over to OpenVZ.  To this day IPv6 remains an
experimental patch for Linux-vserver and I see that question come up
on their list periodically, so I couldn't migrate back there, even if I
wanted to.  That being said, IPv6 support in the OpenVZ vnet device is
nothing to brag about either and I have had to strictly use the veth
devices.

However...  There is a new kid on the block, depending on your
requirements.  Linux Containers or LXC.  It still has a few rough edges
and some differences with OpenVZ but has the big advantage that it's all
in the mainline kernel (2.6.29 and above), so no more patches (yeah!),
it is supported under libvirt, and the utilities are in the major
cutting edge distros like Fedora and Ubuntu.  I found that with a couple
of scripts, I could directly convert OpenVZ config files to LXC config
files and start my old OpenVZ containers as a container under LXC with
no further modification inside the container.  Other than a couple of
initial test containers I was experimenting with, once I got my scripts
settled down and tested, I migrated over 3 dozen VM's from OpenVZ to LXC
in a single day with none of the containers experiencing more that a
minute or so of down time (transfer time between hosts).  Because there
were no changes in the containers themselves, I could migrate them back,
if I needed to, just as fast.

Because LXC requires 2.6.29 and OpenVZ is only available on 2.6.27 or
earlier, obviously you can't run them on the same machine and kernel.

A lot of the OpenVZ developers and Linux-vserver developers have been
contributing to the containers effort in the kernel.


Some of the rough edges:

1) /proc/mounts shows mounts outside of the container (ugly but not
fatal).  Fixed in git.

2) Possible to break out of a container file system (related to #1
above).  It's possible to break out of chrooted jails.  Fixed in git by
using pivot root.  This is serious and if you have potential hostiles in
a container, I wouldn't use LXC yet or use the utilities from git.

3) Halt and Reboot of a container not working.  You have to manually
shut down and restart the container from the host.  Being worked on
right now.  I use a script that detects when there's only one process
running (init) in the container and the container runlevel is 0 or 6 to
decide to shut it down or restart it.  Ugly but works.

4) There still seems to be a lot of development work going on in the
kernel wrt checkpoint and restore.  Since I don't use that much, I
haven't paid that much attention but LXC does support freezing and
unfreezing containers.


Differences:

* LXC supports virtual consoles you can connect to and log into
(lxc-console).

* LXC does not (yet) support the equivalent of vzctl enter (under
discussion - some possible patches).

* Does not have the same level of fine grained resource control
available with OpenVZ (something that is 

Re: [Users] New Kernel Patch

2010-01-16 Thread Marco d'Itri
On Jan 16, Scott Dowdle dow...@montanalinux.org wrote:

 I'm very glad to hear that.  Would you recommend that a stock Debian user use 
 your kernel for OpenVZ stuff?  If so, I have to wonder how well it would work 
 on the upcoming distro releases that Suno was talking about.

Not at all until the new RHEL will be released, because modern versions
of udev (like the one in Debian testing/unstable) do not support 2.6.18
kernels.

-- 
ciao,
Marco
___
Users mailing list
Users@openvz.org
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/users


RE: [Users] New Kernel Patch

2010-01-16 Thread Dietmar Maurer
  I'm very glad to hear that.  Would you recommend that a stock Debian
 user use your kernel for OpenVZ stuff?  If so, I have to wonder how
 well it would work on the upcoming distro releases that Suno was
 talking about.
 
 Not at all until the new RHEL will be released, because modern versions
 of udev (like the one in Debian testing/unstable) do not support 2.6.18
 kernels.

Really, do you have more information on that?

- Dietmar


___
Users mailing list
Users@openvz.org
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/users


Re: [Users] New Kernel Patch

2010-01-16 Thread Josip Rodin
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 12:17:19PM +0100, Suno Ano wrote:
 currently (January 2010) mainline is in development for the .33 release,
 .32 is stable and used by most Linux Distributions like for example
 Debian, Ubuntu, Suse, etc.
 
 From what it looks now Debian and Ubuntu are going into freeze for their
 next stable release in March 2010. Will there be an up-to-date OpenVZ
 kernel patch available by then? Debian is targeting to ship .32 with
 their next stable release called squeeze.
 
 In case OpenVZ will not be available on at least one of the major Linux
 distributions and its offsprings, no need to mention how horrid that
 would be ...

http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2009/10/msg3.html said
OpenVZ will remain supported, but
and http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2009/08/msg00233.html had
previously went unanswered and I don't see anything new at
http://packages.debian.org/linux-image-2.6-openvz-686

I'm thinking the most usable compromise would be if someone volunteered to
maintain the Debian packages of the actual kernel stable release 2.6.27 -
where the meaning of stable more closely corresponds to the Debian
stable release concept. For off-the-shelf usage, mainline releases can
satisfy the same definition, but for corner cases it's doubtful because
they tend to move too fast for people to track them reliably.

I have to mention that Xen has a similar problem - there are XCI 2.6.27
patches which seem to be maintained, whereas it's doubtful anyone really
wants to continue forward-porting the old branch to .32. Xen upstream do
have an advanced paravirt_ops dom0 branch (it's much further along than LXC
vs. OpenVZ, judging by the LXC description in this thread), but it would
still be a regression compared to the old branch for some people who use
some of those still-unimplemented features, so it's not a drop-in
replacement yet.

I'm Cc:ing Adrian Bunk - given that you initated the marking of .27 as
the real stable, and Greg KH is still maintaining .27 upstream, I can't
help but wonder if you might be willing to maintain those packages? :)

Also Cc:'ing the debian-kernel mailing list.

-- 
 2. That which causes joy or happiness.
___
Users mailing list
Users@openvz.org
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/users


Re: [Users] New Kernel Patch

2010-01-16 Thread Marco d'Itri
On Jan 16, Dietmar Maurer diet...@proxmox.com wrote:

  Not at all until the new RHEL will be released, because modern versions
  of udev (like the one in Debian testing/unstable) do not support 2.6.18
  kernels.
 Really, do you have more information on that?
The current version of udev requires a kernel = 2.6.26 (with
CONFIG_SYSFS_DEPRECATED=n so the standard lenny kernel will not work
anyway).
This is caused by the need for features like CONFIG_INOTIFY_USER,
CONFIG_SIGNALFD and sysfs improvements so it cannot be resolved with
trivial patches (I already did this to not require 2.6.27).

The last version which supports 2.6.18 is 145 and it cannot be used with
squeeze anyway without a substantial effort because other packages
depend on newer versions.

I am the maintainer of the Debian udev package and a frequent upstream
contributor.

-- 
ciao,
Marco
___
Users mailing list
Users@openvz.org
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/users


RE: [Users] New Kernel Patch

2010-01-16 Thread Dietmar Maurer
 On Jan 16, Dietmar Maurer diet...@proxmox.com wrote:
 
   Not at all until the new RHEL will be released, because modern
 versions
   of udev (like the one in Debian testing/unstable) do not support
 2.6.18
   kernels.
  Really, do you have more information on that?
 The current version of udev requires a kernel = 2.6.26 (with
 CONFIG_SYSFS_DEPRECATED=n so the standard lenny kernel will not work
 anyway).
 This is caused by the need for features like CONFIG_INOTIFY_USER,
 CONFIG_SIGNALFD and sysfs improvements so it cannot be resolved with
 trivial patches (I already did this to not require 2.6.27).
 
 The last version which supports 2.6.18 is 145 and it cannot be used
 with
 squeeze anyway without a substantial effort because other packages
 depend on newer versions.
 
 I am the maintainer of the Debian udev package and a frequent upstream
 contributor.

Wow, that is very bad news - I guess there will be a major blocker for 
debian squeeze. What is the suggested workaround for people using older
kernels?

- Dietmar


___
Users mailing list
Users@openvz.org
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/users