On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 09:52:06PM +0100, Neobiker wrote:
> >> I'm worried about stability, changes in behaviour, changes in kernel /
> >> parameters, problems with compiling some orig xen kernel, problems running
> >
> >All of those, except stability, are issues you are going to encounter with
> >a new kernel...
> >
> >Can you be more specific about the stability? Have you seen it crash?
>
> I think i had some issues seen during testing (core or even kernel error
> messages), also i saw a cpu panic (twice i think) which isn't reproducable
> (immediate reboot that worked afterwards).
> And i would have choosed the "old" kernel, but it didn't work on my Intel
> Standard System (not really new as Q35/Core2Duo is about 2 years old) whereas
> i think 2.6.18 should run without problems on that hardware. I did a lot of
> tests / configurations with compiling on different distros (debian squeeze
> and lenny, fc14, OpenSuse) with different kernel versions (also updated xen
> kernel sources during compilation sometimes which ends up in different
> results during compilation) and saw an inhomogone picture of xen 4 / kernels
> in total, so that is why i say "does not fit for a prod system now". I am
> missing a reproducable, homogene behaviour of xen / kernels and packages like
> it was with 3.x.
>
> Unfortunately i don't have any logs because i only tested the new xen 4
> features to
> verify the xen wiki docu and features to be able to get a big picture of the
> actual xen 4 status. I am not really happy with the result: xen 4.0.1 with
> pvops kernel works mostly with standard features, missing some things like
> pvusb. 2.6.18 kernel didn't compile or run's only with also seen kernel
> errors (4.0.2-rc1-pre) on my testsystem. Additional having video problems
> (agpart) with standard drivers - actually only squeeze runs with X11 without
> errors.
>
> Actually Squeeze gets the best xen 4 results with xen pakages available :-)
> FC14 is missing a dom0 kernel package, so the plain xen 4 RPM isn't really a
> succes story yet... when this (dom0 kernel pakage) comes, we can say "XEN is
> back" again (if xen 4 is stable and homogene in behaviour as 3.4.2 was).
>
> >> 2.6.18 kernel like above, dependencies like pvops version .32 for > 4.0.1,
> >> .31 for < 4.0.1, bugs in 4.0.0, less bugs in 4.0.1, missing features like
> >
> >PVUSB.. well we would love if somebody volunteered to do the driver.
>
> Yes, me too ;-)
>
> >
> >> pvusb, windows in vhd didn't like the GPLPV drivers (blue screen), signed
> >
> >Uhh, no idea. I am actually using the Novell GPL drivers in Windows 2000
> >and they seem to work fine.
>
> i am using GPLPV without issues with phy:LVM devices (XP and Win7)
>
> >
> >> Citrix PV drivers only work with version 5.5, not 5.6, pvops kernel works
> >> on
> >> my hardware with debian pvops xen 4.0.1 kernel, but xen pvops kernel
> >> compiled according to wiki fc13 page has errors with agpart loading and so
> >> on..... so i'm waiting for 4.0.3 ;-)
> >
> >Hm, the agpart loading I thought was fixed. When did you observe this
> >behavior?
>
> This is actual a problem with 4.0.1 (stable tree) on fc14. squeeze is working
> well at this time. Didn't verify 4.0.2-rc1 yet with X11 - i had to clean all
> the testing chaos on my discs in order not to mix up different things (which
> might happened though) ;-)
>
There are kernel rpms for Fedora, packaged by myoung.
Those kernel rpms are up-to-date.
http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/myoung/dom0-kernel/
Xen-4.0.1-6 rpms in Fedora contain some important backports (bugfixes) from
xen-4.0.2.
-- Pasi
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home