On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:25:14PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> I did speak with Christian Motschke, who did test the package. I'll look
> at the package this weekend, and sponsor it if nobody else did sponsor it
> until then.
Please don't. He did not come back to the Xen team after the discus
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 03:22:16AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> It's been 3 months that I am searching for a sponsor for this one:
Well, the mails don't looked like you wanted that.
> http://ftparchive.gplhost.com/debian/pool/lenny/main/x/xen-qemu-dm-3.4/xen-qemu-dm-3.4_3.4.2-1.dsc
> Which is t
On 24.03.2010 20:22, Thomas Goirand wrote:
- Original message -
Ben Hutchings wrote:
Xen might be doing well in some distributions but in lenny it has been a
disaster. We have been stuck with a dead-end branch that no-one has the
time and knowledge to fix. I believe squeeze will be b
On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 23:05 +0300, William Pitcock wrote:
> Hello,
>
> - "Ian Campbell" wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 11:29 +0100, Olivier Bonvalet wrote:
> > >
> > > But xen-tools have be removed from Squeeze, so I suppose it will be
> > > more difficult to create new installations (
- "Ben Hutchings" wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 17:58 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > > But xen-tools have be removed from Squeeze, so I suppose it will
> be more difficult to create new
> > > installations (require much more work to replace the
> xen-create-image script).
> >
> > Well, I
Hello,
- "Ian Campbell" wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 11:29 +0100, Olivier Bonvalet wrote:
> >
> > But xen-tools have be removed from Squeeze, so I suppose it will be
> > more difficult to create new installations (require much more work
> to
> > replace the xen-create-image script).
>
>
On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 20:18 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> Hmm, looks like http://appliancekit.systeminplace.net/ (referenced from
> your ITP) is gone ("To change this page, upload your website into the
> public_html directory")
which I would have realised was a known issue if I'd read the ITP a bi
Hi,
- "Thomas Goirand" wrote:
> > But xen-tools have be removed from Squeeze, so I suppose it will be
> more difficult to create new
> > installations (require much more work to replace the
> xen-create-image script).
>
> Well, I've been maintaining dtc-xen since Lenny, and it does even mor
- Original message -
> Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > Xen might be doing well in some distributions but in lenny it has been a
> > disaster. We have been stuck with a dead-end branch that no-one has the
> > time and knowledge to fix. I believe squeeze will be better due to the
> > common base
John Goerzen, le Wed 24 Mar 2010 09:19:24 -0500, a écrit :
> I've just noticed that HVM guests (such as Windows) are broken in Xen in
> squeeze due to the lack of qemu-dm (see #562703). Any word on plans for
> that?
Finding somebody that has the time to mentor an upload for Thomas
Goirand, see
h
Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Xen might be doing well in some distributions but in lenny it has been a
> disaster. We have been stuck with a dead-end branch that no-one has the
> time and knowledge to fix. I believe squeeze will be better due to the
> common base kernel version and some support from ups
On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 17:58 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > But xen-tools have be removed from Squeeze, so I suppose it will be more
> > difficult to create new
> > installations (require much more work to replace the xen-create-image
> > script).
>
> Well, I've been maintaining dtc-xen since L
> But xen-tools have be removed from Squeeze, so I suppose it will be more
> difficult to create new
> installations (require much more work to replace the xen-create-image script).
Well, I've been maintaining dtc-xen since Lenny, and it does even more than
xen-tools.
DTC-Xen is in Squeeze and
Toni Mueller wrote:
>
> On Sat, 27.02.2010 at 21:59:39 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>> ]] Faidon Liambotis
>> | Beyond that, I've also seen filesystem corruption when using live
>> | migration and the filesystem cache hasn't been disabled -- an almost
>> | undocumented directive of libvirt's XM
On Sat, 27.02.2010 at 21:59:39 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Faidon Liambotis
> | Beyond that, I've also seen filesystem corruption when using live
> | migration and the filesystem cache hasn't been disabled -- an almost
> | undocumented directive of libvirt's XML.
> |
> | All in all, I'm
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 01:34:24PM +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 07:01:59AM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 04:53:56PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > > There was a thread here a little while back about the status of Xen in
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 11:29 +0100, Olivier Bonvalet wrote:
>
> But xen-tools have be removed from Squeeze, so I suppose it will be
> more difficult to create new installations (require much more work to
> replace the xen-create-image script).
Squeeze (32- and 64-bit) and Lenny (32-bit only) both
Hi,
Olivier Bonvalet wrote:
> But xen-tools have be removed from Squeeze, so I suppose it will be more
> difficult to create new installations (require much more work to replace
> the xen-create-image script).
I took over upstream developement from Steve and I'm working on
reintroduction of x
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 07:01:59AM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 04:53:56PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > There was a thread here a little while back about the status of Xen in
> > future Debian releases. It left me rather confused, and I'm hoping to
On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 01:03 +0300, William Pitcock wrote:
> - "Josip Rodin" wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 01:23:07AM +0300, William Pitcock wrote:
> > > I am looking into packaging xenner already as a backup plan if I
> > cannot
> > > manage to fix some major reentrancy problems in the
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 01:03:46AM +0300, William Pitcock wrote:
> There are also no pvops dom0 kernel packages shipped by Debian yet, at
> least through official channels.
>
> While you are correct that pvops is the future, right now it's no better
> reliability-wise then the 2.6.18 xensource pat
- "Josip Rodin" wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 01:23:07AM +0300, William Pitcock wrote:
> > I am looking into packaging xenner already as a backup plan if I
> cannot
> > manage to fix some major reentrancy problems in the Xen dom0 code
> > (Xensource 2.6.18 patches, the pvops stuff has it'
]] Faidon Liambotis
| Beyond that, I've also seen filesystem corruption when using live
| migration and the filesystem cache hasn't been disabled -- an almost
| undocumented directive of libvirt's XML.
|
| All in all, I'm wondering how people can call this "stable".
I would guess at most people
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:06:57AM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Marco d'Itri, le Fri 26 Feb 2010 02:38:33 +0100, a écrit :
> > On Feb 25, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > 3a) What about Linux virtualization on servers that lack hardware
> > > virtualization support, which Xen supports but KVM doesn't?
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:35:36AM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:18:41AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > According to the wiki the plan is to have pv-ops merge into vanilla with
> > 2.6.34.
>
> I just took a quick look at linux-next (which *should* have everything
>
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:18:41AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> "Xen - Provides para-virtualization and full-virtualization. Mostly used
> >> on servers. Will be abandoned after squeeze."
> >
> > I think that the problem here is that Xen isn't mainstream in the
> > kernel. It takes a lo
* John Goerzen [2010-02-27 17:09]:
> How does libvirt impact performance?
Guess I cunfused libvirt with virtio.
Regards, Martin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://list
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 01:23:07AM +0300, William Pitcock wrote:
> I am looking into packaging xenner already as a backup plan if I cannot
> manage to fix some major reentrancy problems in the Xen dom0 code
> (Xensource 2.6.18 patches, the pvops stuff has it's own share of problems
> and needs more
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:35:30AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> On 26 February 2010 09:53, John Goerzen wrote:
> > According to http://wiki.debian.org/SystemVirtualization :
> >
> > "Qemu and KVM - Mostly used on Desktops/Laptops"
> >
> > "VirtualBox - Mostly used on Desktops/Laptops"
> >
> > "Xen -
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Feb 26, Luca Capello wrote:
>
5) Do we recommend that new installations of lenny or of squeeze avoid
Xen for ease of upgrading to squeeze+1? If so, what should they use?
>>> It depends. KVM in lenny is buggy and lacks important features. While it
>>> works fine
Martin Wuertele wrote:
> * Goswin von Brederlow [2010-02-26 11:19]:
>
>>> KVM is shaping up well and appears to be very well supported by Red Hat.
>> But still slower and less secure due to qemu.
>
> Can you back that statement with numbers? My subjective impression is
> that kvm with libvirt is
* Goswin von Brederlow [2010-02-26 11:19]:
> > KVM is shaping up well and appears to be very well supported by Red Hat.
>
> But still slower and less secure due to qemu.
Can you back that statement with numbers? My subjective impression is
that kvm with libvirt is not slower than xen.
Regards,
Hi,
- "Michael Tautschnig" wrote:
> First of all, I'd like to say a big THANKS to all the people
> maintaining Xen
> within (in of course also outside) Debian; you really saved us lots of
> money and
> energy (which is both, electrical and that personal one).
>
> [...]
>
> >
> > > 4) Wha
Thank you for the conversation on this. I would like to summarize what
people have been saying -- it seems there is still a lot of disagreement
about things out there yet, and I'm not entirely certain about things
yet, but this has been helpful.
I'll include my original email with comments from p
First of all, I'd like to say a big THANKS to all the people maintaining Xen
within (in of course also outside) Debian; you really saved us lots of money and
energy (which is both, electrical and that personal one).
[...]
>
> > 4) What will be our preferred server virtualization option for non-
On Feb 26, Luca Capello wrote:
> >> 5) Do we recommend that new installations of lenny or of squeeze avoid
> >> Xen for ease of upgrading to squeeze+1? If so, what should they use?
> > It depends. KVM in lenny is buggy and lacks important features. While it
> > works fine for development and cas
Hi there!
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 02:38:33 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Feb 25, John Goerzen wrote:
>> 5) Do we recommend that new installations of lenny or of squeeze avoid
>> Xen for ease of upgrading to squeeze+1? If so, what should they use?
> It depends. KVM in lenny is buggy and lacks impor
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 11:58 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Feb 26, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>
> > I understand the pain of maintaining Xen, but believe it is bad idea
> > to defend replacing it with kvm by claiming those needing
> > virtualization and not having servers with hardware support a
Bastian Blank wrote:
>
> Did we ever had something "preferred"?
Not officially, but there were clearly better solutions for different
situations.
-- John
>
> Bastian
>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm
Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> I understand the pain of maintaining Xen, but believe it is bad idea
> to defend replacing it with kvm by claiming those needing
> virtualization and not having servers with hardware support are few
> and should just get new servers.
Agreed. At work, we made a major p
On Feb 26, Philipp Kern wrote:
> Wow, logic. Because they don't have monetary resources to buy new
> servers they have a vast amount of time instead?
Why should they expect other people to solve their problems for them?
Free software is not about other people working in your place.
--
ciao,
Ma
On 2010-02-26, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Feb 26, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>> I understand the pain of maintaining Xen, but believe it is bad idea
>> to defend replacing it with kvm by claiming those needing
>> virtualization and not having servers with hardware support are few
>> and should just
On Feb 26, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> I understand the pain of maintaining Xen, but believe it is bad idea
> to defend replacing it with kvm by claiming those needing
> virtualization and not having servers with hardware support are few
> and should just get new servers.
Obviously these people
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:18:41AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> But the pv-ops xen kernel is shaping up well and that is what Bastian
> Banks is working on. They have a proper upstream and follow the latest
> vanilla kernel well enough. According to the wiki the plan is to have
> pv-ops me
Hi,
1) in Lenny I use the Xen hypervisor 3.4 from Squeeze, so it works.
The main problem is that the linux dom0 patch is not (yet) upstream, and
Debian can't really maintain it.
But we hope, it will be accepted upstream, a lot of works have be done.
As you can see on the Xen wiki
http://wiki.x
"Andrew M.A. Cater" writes:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 04:53:56PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> There was a thread here a little while back about the status of Xen in
>> future Debian releases. It left me rather confused, and I'm hoping to
>> find some answers (which I will then
Marco d'Itri, le Fri 26 Feb 2010 02:38:33 +0100, a écrit :
> On Feb 25, John Goerzen wrote:
> > 3a) What about Linux virtualization on servers that lack hardware
> > virtualization support, which Xen supports but KVM doesn't?
> Tough luck.
>
> > 6) Are we communicating this to Debian users in som
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 04:53:56PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> "Xen - Provides para-virtualization and full-virtualization. Mostly used
> on servers. Will be abandoned after squeeze."
> The Xen page on the wiki makes no mention of this.
Well, I don't know where this conclusion comes from. But usu
[Andrew M.A. Cater]
> Which servers that lack hardware virtualisation support - pretty
> much everything made in the last two or three years has it. For
> servers, specifically, the likelihood is that - Lenny has a 2 year
> life + 1 year, Squeeze has ? year life + 1 year - by the time you
> get to
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 04:53:56PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> There was a thread here a little while back about the status of Xen in
> future Debian releases. It left me rather confused, and I'm hoping to
> find some answers (which I will then happily document in the wiki).
>
> A
On Feb 25, John Goerzen wrote:
> 3) What will be our preferred Linux server virtualization option after
> squeeze? Are we confident enough in the stability and performance of
> KVM to call it such? (Last I checked, its paravirt support was of
Yes.
> rather iffy stability and performance, but I
On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 16:53 -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> There was a thread here a little while back about the status of Xen in
> future Debian releases. It left me rather confused, and I'm hoping to
> find some answers (which I will then happily document in the wiki).
You're askin
On 26 February 2010 09:53, John Goerzen wrote:
> According to http://wiki.debian.org/SystemVirtualization :
>
> "Qemu and KVM - Mostly used on Desktops/Laptops"
>
> "VirtualBox - Mostly used on Desktops/Laptops"
>
> "Xen - Provides para-virtualization and full-virtualization. Mostly used
> on serv
Hi folks,
There was a thread here a little while back about the status of Xen in
future Debian releases. It left me rather confused, and I'm hoping to
find some answers (which I will then happily document in the wiki).
According to http://wiki.debian.org/SystemVirtualization :
"Qemu and KVM - M
54 matches
Mail list logo
