FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-16-2008, 11:49 AM
Pasi Kärkkäinen
 
Default Xen status in lenny?

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 02:23:26PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:57:26AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 12:51 +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:50:22AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > > > see relevant posts of Ian Campbell on d-kernel
> > > >
> > >
> > > You mean this?: http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2008/07/msg00070.html
> > >
> > > I think the situation has changed after that..
> >
> > The save/restore and ballooning patches were applied to the trunk 2.6.26
> > Debian kernel a few days back, enabling these features for 32 bit
> > kernels.
> >
>
> Yep.
>
> > >
> > > See: http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps
> > >
> > > I think x86-64 xen patches are going in for 2.6.27..
> > >
> > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/x86/linux-2.6-tip.git;a=summary
> > >
> > > "9 hours ago Ingo Molnar Merge branch 'xen-64bit'"
> >
> > Lenny will be releasing with (at most) 2.6.26 and these patches are a
> > bit too large and intrusive to non-Xen code paths to be backported.
> >
>
> Yeah, I only meant those patches are queued for upstream 2.6.27. I didn't
> mean they should be applied to debian xen kernel for lenny.
>
> Like said, this thread was started to discuss about possible options of
> getting xen dom0 support into lenny, and I pasted that git link to give a
> status update of pv_ops work happening atm.
>

Lenny will ship with a much worse Xen support than etch.. which sucks.

Lenny will not support 64bit, no dom0.. so basicly lenny can only be used as
a 32bit domU .. unless people build/get some other dom0 kernel.

Obviously this is not debian's fault, and that's why we have this discussion
now.. trying to see if there are any options of fixing the situation.

(this thread was started on debian-xen list btw.. at some point it has
falled off from CC list though)

-- Pasi


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 07-16-2008, 11:49 AM
Pasi Kärkkäinen
 
Default Xen status in lenny?

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 02:23:26PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:57:26AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 12:51 +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:50:22AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > > > see relevant posts of Ian Campbell on d-kernel
> > > >
> > >
> > > You mean this?: http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2008/07/msg00070.html
> > >
> > > I think the situation has changed after that..
> >
> > The save/restore and ballooning patches were applied to the trunk 2.6.26
> > Debian kernel a few days back, enabling these features for 32 bit
> > kernels.
> >
>
> Yep.
>
> > >
> > > See: http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps
> > >
> > > I think x86-64 xen patches are going in for 2.6.27..
> > >
> > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/x86/linux-2.6-tip.git;a=summary
> > >
> > > "9 hours ago Ingo Molnar Merge branch 'xen-64bit'"
> >
> > Lenny will be releasing with (at most) 2.6.26 and these patches are a
> > bit too large and intrusive to non-Xen code paths to be backported.
> >
>
> Yeah, I only meant those patches are queued for upstream 2.6.27. I didn't
> mean they should be applied to debian xen kernel for lenny.
>
> Like said, this thread was started to discuss about possible options of
> getting xen dom0 support into lenny, and I pasted that git link to give a
> status update of pv_ops work happening atm.
>

Lenny will ship with a much worse Xen support than etch.. which sucks.

Lenny will not support 64bit, no dom0.. so basicly lenny can only be used as
a 32bit domU .. unless people build/get some other dom0 kernel.

Obviously this is not debian's fault, and that's why we have this discussion
now.. trying to see if there are any options of fixing the situation.

(this thread was started on debian-xen list btw.. at some point it has
falled off from CC list though)

-- Pasi


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 07-16-2008, 12:11 PM
William Pitcock
 
Default Xen status in lenny?

On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 12:35 +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 12:51:21PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:50:22AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > > On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 05:22:55PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > > > Hopefully Jeremy Fitzhardinge (from Xensource) and others can get the
> > > > > important Xen kernel features ported to pv_ops framework and integrated
> > > > > into vanilla linus kernels soon..
> > > > >
> > > > > Status/todo:
> > > > > http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps
> > > > >
> > > > > Redhat/Fedora pv_ops Xen kernel dom0 support status:
> > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvopsDom0
> > > >
> > > > SLES 11 will include Linux 2.6.26 with Xen patches - packages should be
> > > > available any day now from
> > > > <ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/kernel/kotd/SL110_BRANCH/i386/>. Is it
> > > > possible that those patches will be usable in lenny, as I believe the
> > > > kernel team expects to release with Linux 2.6.26?
> > >
> > > dom0 looks currently out of reach,
> > > what we have is the snapshotting features of 2.6.27 for x86_32.
> > >
> >
> > Hmm.. what do you mean with "out of reach" ? pv_ops dom0 is not yet
> > ready/working, but those SLES 11 patches have the xensource (2.6.18 forward
> > port) of dom0 and all the other xen kernel features for 2.6.26..
>
> sorry but no please read
> http://wiki.debian.org/DebianKernelPatchAcceptanceGuidelines
>
> pv_ops is the upstream way we enabled them in 2.6.25 and
> enhance the existing 2.6.26 base.
> what are you moaning?

Without dom0, lenny will be unusable for several installations of mine
which presently run an ugly combination of etch's dom0 and lenny's
kernel. I would like to do that in a different way.

If we will not see dom0 in linux-2.6 on Debian, we should at least have
a 2.6.18 tree with dom0.

William
 
Old 07-16-2008, 12:11 PM
William Pitcock
 
Default Xen status in lenny?

On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 12:35 +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 12:51:21PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:50:22AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > > On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 05:22:55PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > > > Hopefully Jeremy Fitzhardinge (from Xensource) and others can get the
> > > > > important Xen kernel features ported to pv_ops framework and integrated
> > > > > into vanilla linus kernels soon..
> > > > >
> > > > > Status/todo:
> > > > > http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps
> > > > >
> > > > > Redhat/Fedora pv_ops Xen kernel dom0 support status:
> > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvopsDom0
> > > >
> > > > SLES 11 will include Linux 2.6.26 with Xen patches - packages should be
> > > > available any day now from
> > > > <ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/kernel/kotd/SL110_BRANCH/i386/>. Is it
> > > > possible that those patches will be usable in lenny, as I believe the
> > > > kernel team expects to release with Linux 2.6.26?
> > >
> > > dom0 looks currently out of reach,
> > > what we have is the snapshotting features of 2.6.27 for x86_32.
> > >
> >
> > Hmm.. what do you mean with "out of reach" ? pv_ops dom0 is not yet
> > ready/working, but those SLES 11 patches have the xensource (2.6.18 forward
> > port) of dom0 and all the other xen kernel features for 2.6.26..
>
> sorry but no please read
> http://wiki.debian.org/DebianKernelPatchAcceptanceGuidelines
>
> pv_ops is the upstream way we enabled them in 2.6.25 and
> enhance the existing 2.6.26 base.
> what are you moaning?

Without dom0, lenny will be unusable for several installations of mine
which presently run an ugly combination of etch's dom0 and lenny's
kernel. I would like to do that in a different way.

If we will not see dom0 in linux-2.6 on Debian, we should at least have
a 2.6.18 tree with dom0.

William
 
Old 07-16-2008, 12:11 PM
maximilian attems
 
Default Xen status in lenny?

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 07:11:06AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
>
> Without dom0, lenny will be unusable for several installations of mine
> which presently run an ugly combination of etch's dom0 and lenny's
> kernel. I would like to do that in a different way.
>
> If we will not see dom0 in linux-2.6 on Debian, we should at least have
> a 2.6.18 tree with dom0.

no.
we will not have 2 different linux-2.6 versions in Lenny.
please think of the implications before throwing out suggestions.

--
maks


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 07-16-2008, 12:11 PM
maximilian attems
 
Default Xen status in lenny?

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 07:11:06AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
>
> Without dom0, lenny will be unusable for several installations of mine
> which presently run an ugly combination of etch's dom0 and lenny's
> kernel. I would like to do that in a different way.
>
> If we will not see dom0 in linux-2.6 on Debian, we should at least have
> a 2.6.18 tree with dom0.

no.
we will not have 2 different linux-2.6 versions in Lenny.
please think of the implications before throwing out suggestions.

--
maks


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 07-16-2008, 12:23 PM
Pasi Kärkkäinen
 
Default Xen status in lenny?

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 07:11:06AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 12:35 +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 12:51:21PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:50:22AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 05:22:55PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > Hopefully Jeremy Fitzhardinge (from Xensource) and others can get the
> > > > > > important Xen kernel features ported to pv_ops framework and integrated
> > > > > > into vanilla linus kernels soon..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Status/todo:
> > > > > > http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Redhat/Fedora pv_ops Xen kernel dom0 support status:
> > > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvopsDom0
> > > > >
> > > > > SLES 11 will include Linux 2.6.26 with Xen patches - packages should be
> > > > > available any day now from
> > > > > <ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/kernel/kotd/SL110_BRANCH/i386/>. Is it
> > > > > possible that those patches will be usable in lenny, as I believe the
> > > > > kernel team expects to release with Linux 2.6.26?
> > > >
> > > > dom0 looks currently out of reach,
> > > > what we have is the snapshotting features of 2.6.27 for x86_32.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hmm.. what do you mean with "out of reach" ? pv_ops dom0 is not yet
> > > ready/working, but those SLES 11 patches have the xensource (2.6.18 forward
> > > port) of dom0 and all the other xen kernel features for 2.6.26..
> >
> > sorry but no please read
> > http://wiki.debian.org/DebianKernelPatchAcceptanceGuidelines
> >
> > pv_ops is the upstream way we enabled them in 2.6.25 and
> > enhance the existing 2.6.26 base.
> > what are you moaning?
>
> Without dom0, lenny will be unusable for several installations of mine
> which presently run an ugly combination of etch's dom0 and lenny's
> kernel. I would like to do that in a different way.
>
> If we will not see dom0 in linux-2.6 on Debian, we should at least have
> a 2.6.18 tree with dom0.
>

For comparison Fedora people decided to release F9 with only domU support
included.. they didn't want to do anymore forward porting from xensource
2.6.18 xen kernels (I bet noone wants to do that) and decided to include
pv_ops based upstream kernel. And they wanted to have same versions of
both the normal (baremetal) kernel and kernel-xen.

but they patched 64bit xen pv_ops domU support in. So F9 supports both 32b
and 64b pv_ops domU. F9 has 2.6.25 kernel.

Fedora is planning to add dom0 support back to their kernel when pv_ops
based dom0 is functional.. It's not yet certain if it will be ready for
their next release (F10).

Fedora people didn't want to include separate (2.6.18) xen dom0 kernel..
because it would have created too many problems with other tools/packages
requiring features/APIs/ABIs from the kernel.. too big difference between
2.6.18 (xensource) and 2.6.25+ (vanilla/upstream linux).

So yeah, just to wrap up their thoughts.

-- Pasi


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 07-16-2008, 12:23 PM
Pasi Kärkkäinen
 
Default Xen status in lenny?

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 07:11:06AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 12:35 +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 12:51:21PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:50:22AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 05:22:55PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > Hopefully Jeremy Fitzhardinge (from Xensource) and others can get the
> > > > > > important Xen kernel features ported to pv_ops framework and integrated
> > > > > > into vanilla linus kernels soon..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Status/todo:
> > > > > > http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenParavirtOps
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Redhat/Fedora pv_ops Xen kernel dom0 support status:
> > > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvopsDom0
> > > > >
> > > > > SLES 11 will include Linux 2.6.26 with Xen patches - packages should be
> > > > > available any day now from
> > > > > <ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/kernel/kotd/SL110_BRANCH/i386/>. Is it
> > > > > possible that those patches will be usable in lenny, as I believe the
> > > > > kernel team expects to release with Linux 2.6.26?
> > > >
> > > > dom0 looks currently out of reach,
> > > > what we have is the snapshotting features of 2.6.27 for x86_32.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hmm.. what do you mean with "out of reach" ? pv_ops dom0 is not yet
> > > ready/working, but those SLES 11 patches have the xensource (2.6.18 forward
> > > port) of dom0 and all the other xen kernel features for 2.6.26..
> >
> > sorry but no please read
> > http://wiki.debian.org/DebianKernelPatchAcceptanceGuidelines
> >
> > pv_ops is the upstream way we enabled them in 2.6.25 and
> > enhance the existing 2.6.26 base.
> > what are you moaning?
>
> Without dom0, lenny will be unusable for several installations of mine
> which presently run an ugly combination of etch's dom0 and lenny's
> kernel. I would like to do that in a different way.
>
> If we will not see dom0 in linux-2.6 on Debian, we should at least have
> a 2.6.18 tree with dom0.
>

For comparison Fedora people decided to release F9 with only domU support
included.. they didn't want to do anymore forward porting from xensource
2.6.18 xen kernels (I bet noone wants to do that) and decided to include
pv_ops based upstream kernel. And they wanted to have same versions of
both the normal (baremetal) kernel and kernel-xen.

but they patched 64bit xen pv_ops domU support in. So F9 supports both 32b
and 64b pv_ops domU. F9 has 2.6.25 kernel.

Fedora is planning to add dom0 support back to their kernel when pv_ops
based dom0 is functional.. It's not yet certain if it will be ready for
their next release (F10).

Fedora people didn't want to include separate (2.6.18) xen dom0 kernel..
because it would have created too many problems with other tools/packages
requiring features/APIs/ABIs from the kernel.. too big difference between
2.6.18 (xensource) and 2.6.25+ (vanilla/upstream linux).

So yeah, just to wrap up their thoughts.

-- Pasi


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 07-16-2008, 12:26 PM
Pasi Kärkkäinen
 
Default Xen status in lenny?

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 02:11:48PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 07:11:06AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> >
> > Without dom0, lenny will be unusable for several installations of mine
> > which presently run an ugly combination of etch's dom0 and lenny's
> > kernel. I would like to do that in a different way.
> >
> > If we will not see dom0 in linux-2.6 on Debian, we should at least have
> > a 2.6.18 tree with dom0.
>
> no.
> we will not have 2 different linux-2.6 versions in Lenny.
> please think of the implications before throwing out suggestions.
>

So basicly Debian takes the same route as Fedora did (see my other mail
about it).

It's understandable from the distribution/kernel maintencance point of view.

But it's really sucky for the users.. This needs good documentation in the
release notes etc.. so people realize lenny won't support Xen virtualization
anymore (running virtual machines on lenny host).

-- Pasi


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 07-16-2008, 12:26 PM
Pasi Kärkkäinen
 
Default Xen status in lenny?

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 02:11:48PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 07:11:06AM -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> >
> > Without dom0, lenny will be unusable for several installations of mine
> > which presently run an ugly combination of etch's dom0 and lenny's
> > kernel. I would like to do that in a different way.
> >
> > If we will not see dom0 in linux-2.6 on Debian, we should at least have
> > a 2.6.18 tree with dom0.
>
> no.
> we will not have 2 different linux-2.6 versions in Lenny.
> please think of the implications before throwing out suggestions.
>

So basicly Debian takes the same route as Fedora did (see my other mail
about it).

It's understandable from the distribution/kernel maintencance point of view.

But it's really sucky for the users.. This needs good documentation in the
release notes etc.. so people realize lenny won't support Xen virtualization
anymore (running virtual machines on lenny host).

-- Pasi


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:07 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org