WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-users

Re: [Xen-users] Using Linux 2.4 custom domu on x86_64 2.6 Xen dom0

To: "Petersson, Mats" <Mats.Petersson@xxxxxxx>, xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Using Linux 2.4 custom domu on x86_64 2.6 Xen dom0
From: Brian <spatuality@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 09:08:17 -0700 (PDT)
Delivery-date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 09:08:59 -0700
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.ca; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=fzbf7SJlvsdyMpq7GHfaC9hD4jysuiw2HL+vF/hp3uz/CJyzavMzsgIgh3jvBt/a9DXcY4gZbWw6Ldqf0KVJaUVHd1uyMH5KgQ+gUdxKpbb87orb0FcZpLJXlxOOn/3R0C6MXgo9b1cK1o12AV7ZLIqO5hIsi0eEsa/fDPcWyQ0= ;
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <907625E08839C4409CE5768403633E0BA7FDC0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-users@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply-to: Brian <spatuality@xxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Since you want to run more than 4 1GB DomU on one guest (presumably to
>save hardware cost), I can't really see any way to solve this, as Xen
>2.x doesn't support PAE or x86_64. 

I looked at the source files again, and realized the unstable tarball is 
actually 3.x, not 2.x made to work with pae or x86_64 as I had first thought. 
So right you are: 3.x is the only possible choice in my case.

>The only viable solutions are:
>1. Upgrade your kernel to 2.6.16 or so, and apply the relevant patches
>here. 

That's my next stop. I hoped to delay the recompile of our application servers 
to use 2.6 until a later time, but that delay doesn't seem possible. Time to 
transfer my stumblings into the devel list.

>2. Run fully virtualized (VT/SVM technology) on x86_64 or 32-bit PAE. 

The blades we're using don't have the VT processors in them. Maybe the next 
round will, though from what I have seen on current performance comparisons I 
might want to run paravirtualized anyways.

>3. Run fewer guest per blade (possibly on a less expensive blade-model
>with fewer cores/CPU's and less memory slots).

It's a server per U of rack space issue. Getting 4 virtual servers out of each 
blade instead of 10 will not fly.

Thanks for the clarifications. Onward to upgrading.

Brian





_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users