Xen users - Jan 2006 - RE: Using the -xen kernel rather than -xen0/U was Poorhard disk performance on xen-3/dom0

> Thanks for the reply Ian. Fernando on this list told me about 
> the vifname parameter being excluded from xen 3.0 (doesn''t 
> work either when i try to use it inside the config) and was 
> reincluded in unstable, any ideas when it would make it to 
> the stable /rpm. 
There''s a few things we want to get into to -unstable before we roll
3.0.1, such as the xen subarch changes and 2.6.14. Maybe 2-4 weeks. 

With all the regression testing, the -unstable tree is usually stable
(unless you''re unlucky and get a bad changeset), so plenty of people do
use it in production.

Ian

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

Thanks for the information. I will try the unstable out. However will still
love to see it out in stable version.

On 1/1/06, Ian Pratt <m+Ian.Pratt@cl.cam.ac.uk>
wrote:
>
>
> > Thanks for the reply Ian. Fernando on this list told me about
> > the vifname parameter being excluded from xen 3.0 (doesn''t
> > work either when i try to use it inside the config) and was
> > reincluded in unstable, any ideas when it would make it to
> > the stable /rpm.
>
> There''s a few things we want to get into to -unstable before we
roll
> 3.0.1, such as the xen subarch changes and 2.6.14. Maybe 2-4 weeks.
>
> With all the regression testing, the -unstable tree is usually stable
> (unless you''re unlucky and get a bad changeset), so plenty of
people do
> use it in production.
>
> Ian
>

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