Hi, We are thinking of using CentOS with XEN in production, but we are facing some issues regarding the 3.0.3 version of the xen hypervisor and windows paravirtualization. The drivers we are using are from here ( http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenWindowsGplPv). The solution we found is upgrading to xen 3.4.2, using a strange repository (gitco.de), and everything seems to work. Now the question is: would you recomand using the 3.0.3 kernel provided by CentOS in production and searching for other paravirtualization drivers, or go with 3.4.2? Is this version of the hypervisor stable? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-virt/attachments/20101216/764dbdcc/attachment-0006.html>
Hi Paul, I use Xen 3.4.2 in production on Centos with Windows 2003 server virtual machines using those GPL PV drivers. I put it into production in March this year I think. The only stability problems I?ve had has been because my Xen servers are using an NFS root from an at times overloaded NFS server. Thanks, Evan. Evan Fraser Senior Systems Analyst Peninsular House, 30 Monument Street London EC3R 8NB, United Kingdom Tel +44 20 7444 7860 Mobile +44 75 9024 5788 evan.fraser at rms.com www.rms.com From: centos-virt-bounces at centos.org [mailto:centos-virt-bounces at centos.org] On Behalf Of Paul Piscuc Sent: 16 December 2010 09:01 To: centos-virt at centos.org Subject: [CentOS-virt] Xen version Hi, We are thinking of using CentOS with XEN in production, but we are facing some issues regarding the 3.0.3 version of the xen hypervisor and windows paravirtualization. The drivers we are using are from here (http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenWindowsGplPv). The solution we found is upgrading to xen 3.4.2, using a strange repository (gitco.de<http://gitco.de>), and everything seems to work. Now the question is: would you recomand using the 3.0.3 kernel provided by CentOS in production and searching for other paravirtualization drivers, or go with 3.4.2? Is this version of the hypervisor stable? ________________________________ This message and any attachments contain information that may be RMS Inc. confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the intended recipient), and have received this message in error, any use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the e-mail and permanently deleting the message from your computer and/or storage system. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-virt/attachments/20101216/67e75671/attachment-0006.html>
Paul Piscuc writes:> ? HTML content follows ? > Hi, > > > We are thinking of using CentOS with XEN in production, but we are facing > some issues regarding the 3.0.3 version of the xen hypervisor and windows > paravirtualization. The drivers we are using are from here > (<URL:http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenWindowsGplPv>http://wiki.xensour > ce.com/xenwiki/XenWindowsGplPv). The solution we found is upgrading to xen > 3.4.2, using a strange repository (<URL:http://gitco.de>gitco.de), and > everything seems to work. Now the question is: would you recomand using > the 3.0.3 kernel provided by CentOS in production and searching for other > paravirtualization drivers, or go with 3.4.2? Is this version of the > hypervisor stable?Why get complicated and not use KVM? Xen's future @ RedHat is not that bright. My 2 pence. -- Nux! www.nux.ro
On Dec 16, 2010, at 1:01 AM, Paul Piscuc wrote:> Hi, > > We are thinking of using CentOS with XEN in production, but we are facing some issues regarding the 3.0.3 version of the xen hypervisor and windows paravirtualization. The drivers we are using are from here (http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenWindowsGplPv). The solution we found is upgrading to xen 3.4.2, using a strange repository (gitco.de), and everything seems to work. Now the question is: would you recomand using the 3.0.3 kernel provided by CentOS in production and searching for other paravirtualization drivers, or go with 3.4.2? Is this version of the hypervisor stable?While gitco isn't really that "strange" (as I'm pretty sure its widely deployed judging from comments on this list) I've never got around to upgrading to it. I've got more than a dozen Windows VMs: XP, 2003 32 and 64 bit, all running on 3.0.3 (actually is Xen 3.1.2 with 3.0.3 dom0 tools on el5.5, check your "xm dmesg" output). Anyhow, it's been stable "enough" for me, currently on version 0.10.0.142 of the GPL PV drivers. Actually I don't use it for my production stuff either, but since in my experience it's significantly faster than other virt platforms, we use it where I feel is appropriate. Here's my one exception: one of my boxes (was XP) would keep blue-screening (irql_not_less_than_or_equal (sp?) ), another one of our sysadmins located it to be an issue with the on-demand/live virus scanner software; switched to a different product and the problem went away. I also had another different XP box have the same error for awhile back in early 2009 and that arrived and went away with upgrades of xen on the host. But in the last two years I've never had issue with Server 2003, or (very limited use) 2008. Eric -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-virt/attachments/20101216/834aaa4d/attachment-0004.sig>