Can I run 8/07 fully virtualised on an Intel VT CPU (with a Linux Dom0)? I gave up on 11/06 because of real mode problems. If not, does anyone have an estimate of when this might be possible, if at all? Thanks - Evan
I am a bit confused. HVM Solaris Guest at Linux Dom0 will anyway suffer performance degradation. Why you need Linux Dom0 on top of Xen ? The most recent VMWare Server ( for example) will make Solaris 10 fully virtualized machine with the same performance. This message posted from opensolaris.org
Boris Derzhavets wrote:> I am a bit confused. HVM Solaris Guest at Linux Dom0 > will anyway suffer performance degradation. > Why you need Linux Dom0 on top of Xen ? > The most recent VMWare Server ( for example) will> make Solaris 10 fully virtualized machine with the same performance. Not sure what you asking. If it''s why does Xen need a dom0... Xen+dom0 == ESX Server. ESX server has the equivalent of the functionality in dom0, but you don''t see it. MRJ
> Boris Derzhavets wrote: > > I am a bit confused. HVM Solaris Guest at Linux > Dom0 > > will anyway suffer performance degradation. > > Why you need Linux Dom0 on top of Xen ? > > The most recent VMWare Server ( for example) will > > make Solaris 10 fully virtualized machine with the > same performance. > Not sure what you asking. If it's why does > Xen need a dom0...Mark, Thank you for explanation. I am not asking why Xen needs Dom0. I am suggesting to create Solaris 08/07 fully virtualized machine with technology different from Xen Hypervisor , for example VMware. It’s pretty easy to create VMware VM for Solaris 11/06 on CentOS 5.0 (Xen disabled). At the same time when I try to to use Xen 3.1 VM Manager on the CentOS 5.1 to create Solaris 11/06 HVM guest installation hangs .It will also hang for Solaris 08/07 HVM guest. Solaris 08/07 HVM guest is easy to install only on SNV76 (78) Dom0. Functionality from theoretical standpoint is the same. I believe implementations differ.> > Xen+dom0 == ESX Server. > > ESX server has the equivalent of the functionality in > dom0, but you don't see it. > > > MRJ > > > > _______________________________________________ > xen-discuss mailing list > xen-discuss@opensolaris.orgThis message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ xen-discuss mailing list xen-discuss@opensolaris.org
Boris Derzhavets wrote:>> Boris Derzhavets wrote: >>> I am a bit confused. HVM Solaris Guest at Linux >> Dom0 >>> will anyway suffer performance degradation. >>> Why you need Linux Dom0 on top of Xen ? >>> The most recent VMWare Server ( for example) will >>> make Solaris 10 fully virtualized machine with the >> same performance. >> Not sure what you asking. If it's why does >> Xen need a dom0... > Mark, > Thank you for explanation. I am not asking why Xen needs Dom0. > I am suggesting to create Solaris 08/07 fully virtualized machine > with technology different from Xen Hypervisor , for example VMware. > It’s pretty easy to create VMware VM for Solaris 11/06 on CentOS 5.0 > (Xen disabled). At the same time when I try to to use Xen 3.1 VM Manager > on the CentOS 5.1 to create Solaris 11/06 HVM guest > installation hangs .It will also hang for Solaris 08/07 HVM guest. > Solaris 08/07 HVM guest is easy to install only on SNV76 (78) Dom0. > Functionality from theoretical standpoint is the same.There is a bug in 3.0.3 - 3.1.2 Xen where Solaris doesn't run in xVM on Intel machines. We have a patch which fixes it out xVM gate (which Intel helped us with). We have tried to submit it once upstream and it didn't get accepted initially. We need to try again or get the patch out so RedHat, SUSE can add it to their current distros. The bug doesn't exist in 3.2 due to a large change in the VT code. MRJ _______________________________________________ xen-discuss mailing list xen-discuss@opensolaris.org
Mark Johnson wrote:> There is a bug in 3.0.3 - 3.1.2 Xen where Solaris > doesn''t run in xVM on Intel machines. We have a patch > which fixes it out xVM gate (which Intel helped us with).Sorry - what''s "xVM"? HVM?> We have tried to submit it once upstream and it > didn''t get accepted initially. We need to try > again or get the patch out so RedHat, SUSE can > add it to their current distros. > > The bug doesn''t exist in 3.2 due to a large change > in the VT code.So I can run Solaris fully virtual on Intel-VT/Xen3.2? I might give this a go, but there seem to a lot of problems with building 3.2 on the xensource users list. Boris - I''m using Xen because - well, because. :) Never tried VMware, and already gots lots of stuff on Xen. Are you saying that Solaris 10 will run fully virtualised on VMware with no loss of performance? Is that possible? - Evan
Evan Lavelle wrote:> Mark Johnson wrote: > >> There is a bug in 3.0.3 - 3.1.2 Xen where Solaris >> doesn''t run in xVM on Intel machines. We have a patch >> which fixes it out xVM gate (which Intel helped us with). > > Sorry - what''s "xVM"? HVM?It''s was our copyright friendly term :-) The term has taken on a life of it''s own and means much more now though....>> We have tried to submit it once upstream and it >> didn''t get accepted initially. We need to try >> again or get the patch out so RedHat, SUSE can >> add it to their current distros. >> >> The bug doesn''t exist in 3.2 due to a large change >> in the VT code. > > So I can run Solaris fully virtual on Intel-VT/Xen3.2? I might give this > a go, but there seem to a lot of problems with building 3.2 on the > xensource users list.Yes. You can also apply the patch yourself if you would like... If you grab our source, the fix is the following mercurial mq patch intel-realmode-fixes MRJ> Boris - I''m using Xen because - well, because. :) > Never tried VMware, and already gots lots of stuff on Xen. Are you > saying that Solaris 10 will run fully virtualised on VMware with no loss > of performance? Is that possible? > > - Evan > _______________________________________________ > xen-discuss mailing list > xen-discuss@opensolaris.org
> Mark Johnson wrote: > > > There is a bug in 3.0.3 - 3.1.2 Xen where Solaris > > doesn''t run in xVM on Intel machines. We have a > patch > > which fixes it out xVM gate (which Intel helped us > with). > > Sorry - what''s "xVM"? HVM? > > > We have tried to submit it once upstream and it > > didn''t get accepted initially. We need to try > > again or get the patch out so RedHat, SUSE can > > add it to their current distros. > > > > The bug doesn''t exist in 3.2 due to a large change > > in the VT code. > > So I can run Solaris fully virtual on > Intel-VT/Xen3.2? I might give this > a go, but there seem to a lot of problems with > building 3.2 on the > xensource users list. > > Boris - I''m using Xen because - well, because. :) > Never tried VMware, and already gots lots of stuff on > Xen. Are you > saying that Solaris 10 will run fully virtualised on > VMware with no lossEvan, 1. I am saying , that any kind of full virtualization will significantly affect performance. No matter would it be VMVare Solaris VM or Xen Solaris HVM guest. 2. I am also saying that to get Solaris 08/07 HVM guest at Linux Dom0 seems to be hardly possible at mean time. But I can only guess, please, read MRJ''s comments. So, if you do need fully virtualized Solaris 08/07 on Linux you just cannot proceed with Linux Dom0s. You have to look for another Virtualization Tool. View , for example:- http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/87449/index.html 3. You may have Solaris 08/07 HVM guest running nicely at SNV76 Dom0 View , for example:- http://librenix.com/?inode=11444> of performance? Is that possible? > > - Evan > _______________________________________________ > xen-discuss mailing list > xen-discuss@opensolaris.orgThis message posted from opensolaris.org
Boris Derzhavets wrote:> I am a bit confused. HVM Solaris Guest at Linux Dom0 > will anyway suffer performance degradation. > Why you need Linux Dom0 on top of Xen ? > The most recent VMWare Server ( for example) will make Solaris 10 fully virtualized machine with the same performance. > > > This message posted from opensolaris.org > _______________________________________________ > xen-discuss mailing list > xen-discuss@opensolaris.org >See the problem is that Solaris doesn''t have VMware Server. I''d ditch xVM completely if it was available, they just don''t compare. VMware doesn''t use VT/AMD-V except on server and Fusion (Mac) from my experience, so actually it theoretically could be slower, but then again, look how many people work for VMware, Inc. I don''t need to run Linux as a guest, I do need to run Solaris 10 as a guest though, in addition to FreeBSD (i386). Works fine for my use at the moment. James
Boris Derzhavets wrote:>> Boris Derzhavets wrote: >> >>> I am a bit confused. HVM Solaris Guest at Linux >>> >> Dom0 >> >>> will anyway suffer performance degradation. >>> Why you need Linux Dom0 on top of Xen ? >>> The most recent VMWare Server ( for example) will >>> make Solaris 10 fully virtualized machine with the >>> >> same performance. >> Not sure what you asking. If it's why does >> Xen need a dom0... >> > Mark, > Thank you for explanation. I am not asking why Xen needs Dom0. > I am suggesting to create Solaris 08/07 fully virtualized machine > with technology different from Xen Hypervisor , for example VMware. > It’s pretty easy to create VMware VM for Solaris 11/06 on CentOS 5.0 > (Xen disabled). At the same time when I try to to use Xen 3.1 VM Manager > on the CentOS 5.1 to create Solaris 11/06 HVM guest > installation hangs .It will also hang for Solaris 08/07 HVM guest. > Solaris 08/07 HVM guest is easy to install only on SNV76 (78) Dom0. > Functionality from theoretical standpoint is the same. > I believe implementations differ. > >> Xen+dom0 == ESX Server. >> >> ESX server has the equivalent of the functionality in >> dom0, but you don't see it. >> >> >> MRJ >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> xen-discuss mailing list >> xen-discuss@opensolaris.org >> > > > This message posted from opensolaris.org > _______________________________________________ > xen-discuss mailing list > xen-discuss@opensolaris.orgOh, I see, I just posted about this. I have AMD-V, as I have a 1218 series Opteron (Ultra-20 M2) and with 76 I have no issues with Solaris 10 08/07 HVM guest. James _______________________________________________ xen-discuss mailing list xen-discuss@opensolaris.org
> > We have tried to submit it once upstream and it > didn''t get accepted initially. We need to try > again or get the patch out so RedHat, SUSE can > add it to their current distros. > > The bug doesn''t exist in 3.2 due to a large change > in the VT code. > MRJCould it be a reason for rejection ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenFullvirtKernelBoot Quote:- In all prior Fedora releases fullyvirtualized Xen guests had to boot via the QEMU BIOS. This means booting from a CDROM, harddisk, or Network PXE. Paravirtualized guests could always boot directly from a kernel and initrd. This allowed for fully automated guest installation since it allowed the tools to pass arguments straight into anaconda. KVM fullyvirtualized guests also support direct kernel booting. The support for Xen HVM was always there in the underlying QEMU device model, however, it was disabled as it conflicted with the way Xen boots HVM guests. Recently patches were added to upstream Xen to work-around the limitations of Xen''s HVM boot process, so it is now possible to directly boot fullyvirtualized Xen guests from a kernel and initrd, passing boot args.> > _______________________________________________ > xen-discuss mailing list > xen-discuss@opensolaris.orgThis message posted from opensolaris.org
Boris Derzhavets wrote:>> We have tried to submit it once upstream and it >> didn''t get accepted initially. We need to try >> again or get the patch out so RedHat, SUSE can >> add it to their current distros. >> >> The bug doesn''t exist in 3.2 due to a large change >> in the VT code. >> MRJ > Could it be a reason for rejection ? > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenFullvirtKernelBoot > Quote:- > In all prior Fedora releases fullyvirtualized Xen guests had to boot via the QEMU BIOS. This means booting from a CDROM, harddisk, or Network PXE. Paravirtualized guests could always boot directly from a kernel and initrd. This allowed for fully automated guest installation since it allowed the tools to pass arguments straight into anaconda. KVM fullyvirtualized guests also support direct kernel booting. The support for Xen HVM was always there in the underlying QEMU device model, however, it was disabled as it conflicted with the way Xen boots HVM guests. > Recently patches were added to upstream Xen to work-around the limitations of Xen''s HVM boot process, so it is now possible to directly boot fullyvirtualized Xen guests from a kernel and initrd, passing boot args.No, these changes were so the Linux folks could boot a HVM kernel using a kernel image no on the domain. Personally, I don''t think that''s the right direction. MRJ
We installed opensolaris b78 as para virtual guest this week on top of a ubuntu (dapper) dom0 with xen 3.2 We did a flash Install using a custom build dvd (containing the flar file). No issues were experienced duing setup root@QL0008:~# uname -a Linux QL0008 2.6.22.18-xen-64b #1 SMP Wed Feb 13 18:22:13 UTC 2008 x86_64 GNU/Linux root@QL0008:~# xm list Name ID Mem VCPUs State Time(s) Domain-0 0 1024 2 r----- 288.6 sol 2 1024 1 -b---- 245.6 root@QL0008:~# xm console 2 [root@xenstore-10:47 PM-~]# uname -a SunOS xenstore 5.11 snv_78 i86pc i386 i86xpv Solaris [root@xenstore-10:47 PM-~]# exit logout xenstore console login: root@QL0008:~# xm info host : QL0008 release : 2.6.22.18-xen-64b version : #1 SMP Wed Feb 13 18:22:13 UTC 2008 machine : x86_64 nr_cpus : 2 nr_nodes : 1 cores_per_socket : 2 threads_per_core : 1 cpu_mhz : 2210 hw_caps : 178bf3ff:e3d3fbff:00000000:00000010:00000001:00000000:00000003 total_memory : 4094 free_memory : 1969 max_free_memory : 2737 max_para_memory : 2733 max_hvm_memory : 2718 node_to_cpu : node0:0-1 xen_major : 3 xen_minor : 2 xen_extra : .0 xen_caps : xen-3.0-x86_64 xen-3.0-x86_32p xen_scheduler : credit xen_pagesize : 4096 platform_params : virt_start=0xffff800000000000 xen_changeset : unavailable cc_compiler : gcc version 3.4.6 (Ubuntu 3.4.6-1ubuntu2) cc_compile_by : builder cc_compile_domain : [unknown] cc_compile_date : Mon name = ''sol'' memory = ''1024'' #disk = [ ''file:/root/qstore.iso,6:cdrom,r'', ''phy:/dev/sdb2,0,w'' ] disk = [ ''phy:/dev/sdb2,0,w'' ] vif = [''mac=00:16:3E:88:88:88,bridge=qlbr0''] #bootloader = ''pygrub'' #kernel = ''/boot/platform/i86xpv/kernel/amd64/unix'' #ramdisk = ''/boot/amd64/x86.miniroot'' #extra = ''/platform/i86xpv/kernel/amd64/unix - nowin -B install_media=cdrom'' vnc=1 vfb = [ ''type=vnc, vncdisplay=2'' ] During install commneted line were line were in place This message posted from opensolaris.org
Solaris PVM DomUs never caused problems even at Ubuntu 7.10 Dom0 (Xen 3.1). The isuue with Xen 3.1 running on Linux was Solaris 10 U4 HVM install. *********************************************************************** Are able to install Solaris 10 U4 HVM DomU at same Dom0 ? *********************************************************************** This message posted from opensolaris.org
Thanks. I used your config file to try a paravirt install of SXDE 01/08 onto a Fedora 8 Dom0 and, amazingly, it seems to work. I used the x86 ISO from http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/solaris-express/get.jsp, and specified an LVM location in the disk line. There were a couple of minor problems: 1 - I initially specced 512MB memory, and the installer hung up at the ''java'' line; it was Ok on 1GB 2 - I haven''t got ''qlbr0'' - what''s that? I used ''xenbr0'' instead, and it seems to be Ok 3 - The installer couldn''t contact my DHCP server, so I assumed that this was related to qlbr0/xenbr0 and that networking was broken. However, networking appears to be Ok on the installed domain. The config file is curious, though. How can it work with no bootloader *and* no kernel? I tried specifying pygrub, but the Linux xm refused to load the Solaris grub entries. Without the bootloader line, xm appears to use pygrub anyway, but seems to use a kernel stored in the Dom0 /var/run/xend/boot directory. Evan ------------------------------------------------- # -*- mode: python; -*- name = "SXDE-64-001" memory = 1024 vif = [''mac=00:0f:b5:ae:4f:34,bridge=xenbr0''] # post-installation: disk = [ ''phy:/dev/VG_Guests/SXDE-64-001,0,w'' ] # install time: #disk = [''file:/dumps/ISO/SXDE/sol-nv-b79b-x86-dvd.iso,6:cdrom,r'', # ''phy:/dev/VG_Guests/SXDE-64-001,0,w'' ] #bootloader = ''pygrub'' #kernel = ''/boot/platform/i86xpv/kernel/amd64/unix'' #ramdisk = ''/boot/amd64/x86.miniroot'' #extra = ''/platform/i86xpv/kernel/amd64/unix - nowin -B install_media=cdrom'' # sdl doesn''t work, but this is Ok sdl = 1
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 10:19:08AM +0000, Evan Lavelle wrote:> The config file is curious, though. How can it work with no bootloader > *and* no kernel?We default to using pygrub if neither are specified, and pygrub "knows" what Solaris kernel/ramdisk to load in Xen 3.1 onwards.> load the Solaris grub entries. Without the bootloader line, xm appears > to use pygrub anyway, but seems to use a kernel stored in the Dom0 > /var/run/xend/boot directory.That''s not using pygrub, but directly using the files from the dom0 filesystem, as you found. regards john
Pygrub & install Solaris (build >75) DomU at Fedora 8 Dom0 (64-bit) http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/99778/index.html This message posted from opensolaris.org
> Thanks. I used your config file to try a paravirt > install of SXDE 01/08 > onto a Fedora 8 Dom0 and, amazingly, it seems to > work. > > I used the x86 ISO from > http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/solaris-express/ge > t.jsp, and > specified an LVM location in the disk line. There > were a couple of minor > problems: > > 1 - I initially specced 512MB memory, and the > installer hung up at the > ''java'' line; it was Ok on 1GB > > 2 - I haven''t got ''qlbr0'' - what''s that? I used > ''xenbr0'' instead, and it > seems to be OkTune F8 Dom0 as suggested at link provided bellow, to turn on "libvirtd" daemon bridging and NAT forwarding. Then in "pygrub" installation profile spcecify:- vif=[ ''bridge=virbr0'' ] brctl show will report virtual interface of SNV79 DomU attached to virbr0 interface at F8 Dom0. Since then your Solaris DomU''s DHCP request during original install and afterwards will be sent to "dnsmasq" service,running on F8 Dom0. The address you are supposed to get for Solaris DomU should be from subnet 192.168.122.0 (netmask 255.255.255.0). You wouldn''t need anymore any external DHCP Server on the LAN and configuring DHCP bridge on F8 box.> > 3 - The installer couldn''t contact my DHCP server, so > I assumed that > this was related to qlbr0/xenbr0 and that networking > was broken. > However, networking appears to be Ok on the installed > domain. > > The config file is curious, though. How can it work > with no bootloader > *and* no kernel? I tried specifying pygrub, but the > Linux xm refused to > load the Solaris grub entries. Without the bootloader > line, xm appears > to use pygrub anyway, but seems to use a kernel > stored in the Dom0 > /var/run/xend/boot directory. > > Evan > > ------------------------------------------------- > > # -*- mode: python; -*- > > name = "SXDE-64-001" > memory = 1024 > vif = [''mac=00:0f:b5:ae:4f:34,bridge=xenbr0''] > > # post-installation: > disk = [ ''phy:/dev/VG_Guests/SXDE-64-001,0,w'' ] > > # install time: > #disk > [''file:/dumps/ISO/SXDE/sol-nv-b79b-x86-dvd.iso,6:cdrom > ,r'', > # ''phy:/dev/VG_Guests/SXDE-64-001,0,w'' ] > #bootloader = ''pygrub'' > #kernel > ''/boot/platform/i86xpv/kernel/amd64/unix'' > #ramdisk = ''/boot/amd64/x86.miniroot'' > #extra = ''/platform/i86xpv/kernel/amd64/unix - > nowin -B > install_media=cdrom'' > > # sdl doesn''t work, but this is Ok > sdl = 1 > > _______________________________________________ > xen-discuss mailing list > xen-discuss@opensolaris.orgThis message posted from opensolaris.org
Boris Derzhavets wrote:> Tune F8 Dom0 as suggested at link provided bellow, > to turn on "libvirtd" daemon bridging and NAT forwarding. Then > in "pygrub" installation profile spcecify:- > vif=[ ''bridge=virbr0'' ] > brctl show will report virtual interface of SNV79 DomU attached to > virbr0 interface at F8 Dom0. > Since then your Solaris DomU''s DHCP request during original > install and afterwards will be sent to "dnsmasq" service,running on F8 Dom0. > The address you are supposed to get for Solaris DomU should be from > subnet 192.168.122.0 (netmask 255.255.255.0). > You wouldn''t need anymore any external DHCP Server on the LAN and > configuring DHCP bridge on F8 box.Thanks; I''ll give that a go. Do you have the link? You seem to have left it off the post. Evan
http://bderzhavets.blogspot.com/2008/02/pygrub-install-snv81-domu-at-fedora-8.html http://lxer.com/module/newswire/byuser.php?user=dba477&offset=0 This message posted from opensolaris.org
> Thanks; I''ll give that a go. Do you have the link? > You seem to have left > it off the post.Link @Lxer.com works:- Post at Lxer:- Xen implementation on Fedora 8 allows to utilize pygrub as bootloader , what significantly simplifies creating installation and runtime profiles for SNV DomU and also will work for any build of Solaris xVM (76,78,79) regardless of " Bug 633784 checksum offload with Linux dom0 produces invalid checksum" , been fixed in build 81. Full Story - Click on this link brings to blog entry.> > Evan > _______________________________________________ > xen-discuss mailing list > xen-discuss@opensolaris.orgThis message posted from opensolaris.org