thr3ads.net - Xen users - [Xen-devel] Dynamic Memory Management and Migration (3.0.4-0) [Jan 2007]

If this information is useful, please help other people find it:
Share via:

Timo Benk

2007-Jan-31 15:29 UTC

[Xen-devel] Dynamic Memory Management and Migration (3.0.4-0)

Hello,

i noticed the following Problem:

if i want to allow dynamic memory management of Linux-domains, i need to
set the following kernel parameter. Otherwise it is not possible, to
increase the memory of the domain above the initial assigned value:

extra = "mem=10240M"

But now it is not possible to migrate the domain. If try an offline
migration, the xm-command hangs forever.

One time i tried a live migration, the domain just disappears. The
domain was neither running on the src-domain-0 nor on the dst-domain-0,
the domain just vanished.

Greetings,
-timo
-- 
Timo Benk - Jabber ID: fry@downtempo.de - ICQ ID: #414944731
PGP Public Key: http://m28s01.vlinux.de/timo_benk_gpg_key.asc


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

Tim Wood

2007-Jan-31 15:59 UTC

head link

Re: [Xen-devel] Dynamic Memory Management and Migration (3.0.4-0)

On 1/31/07, Timo Benk <timo.benk@gmx.de> wrote:> Hello,
>
> i noticed the following Problem:
>
> if i want to allow dynamic memory management of Linux-domains, i need to
> set the following kernel parameter. Otherwise it is not possible, to
> increase the memory of the domain above the initial assigned value:
>
> extra = "mem=10240M"
>
> But now it is not possible to migrate the domain. If try an offline
> migration, the xm-command hangs forever.
You may want to try initially giving the domain the full allocation
and then decreasing its share once it has booted.  You should be able
to expand back to the full amount.  I have used this method and
successfully performed migrations in the past.
>
> One time i tried a live migration, the domain just disappears. The
> domain was neither running on the src-domain-0 nor on the dst-domain-0,
> the domain just vanished.
>
I have noticed that live migration of domains which are not currently
allocated their full amount of memory can take much longer.  There was
speculation that this was because of millions of debug logs which
inadvertently get printed out and slow progress to a crawl.  This may
well have been fixed in recent versions of xen, I''m still stuck back a
generation or two on my systems.

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

Timo Benk

2007-Jan-31 16:11 UTC

head link

Re: [Xen-devel] Dynamic Memory Management and Migration (3.0.4-0)

Tim Wood wrote:> On 1/31/07, Timo Benk <timo.benk@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> i noticed the following Problem:
>>
>> if i want to allow dynamic memory management of Linux-domains, i need
to
>> set the following kernel parameter. Otherwise it is not possible, to
>> increase the memory of the domain above the initial assigned value:
>>
>> extra = "mem=10240M"
>>
>> But now it is not possible to migrate the domain. If try an offline
>> migration, the xm-command hangs forever.
> 
> You may want to try initially giving the domain the full allocation
> and then decreasing its share once it has booted.  You should be able
> to expand back to the full amount.  I have used this method and
> successfully performed migrations in the past.Yepp, that is the workaround. But if you have already 10 domains using
most of the memory, the domain  in question will not start ''cause there
is not enough memory.

Greetings,
-timo

-- 
Timo Benk - Jabber ID: fry@downtempo.de - ICQ ID: #414944731
PGP Public Key: http://m28s01.vlinux.de/timo_benk_gpg_key.asc


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

Steven Hand

2007-Jan-31 16:20 UTC

head link

Re: [Xen-devel] Dynamic Memory Management and Migration (3.0.4-0)

> You may want to try initially giving the domain the full allocation
> and then decreasing its share once it has booted.  You should be able
> to expand back to the full amount.  I have used this method and
> successfully performed migrations in the past.
Yes, this should work in 3.0.4.
>> One time i tried a live migration, the domain just disappears. The
>> domain was neither running on the src-domain-0 nor on the dst-domain-0,
>> the domain just vanished.
This issue (better handling of failure during live migration) is planned to 
be
fixed for 3.0.5.
> I have noticed that live migration of domains which are not currently
> allocated their full amount of memory can take much longer.  There was
> speculation that this was because of millions of debug logs which
> inadvertently get printed out and slow progress to a crawl.  This may
> well have been fixed in recent versions of xen, I''m still stuck
back a
> generation or two on my systems.
There''s two issues here:
   1. excessive printfs() for ballooned down domains - this is fixed in both
       3.0.4-1 and -unstable
   2. lazy allocation of memory for ballooned down domains (so you
don''t
       need ''maxem'' on the destination, just the current
allocation); this
is
       fixed in current -unstable.

In general it''s worth upgrading to either the latest minor release or
the
tip
of the latest -testing tree.

cheers,

S.


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

Daniel P. Berrange

2007-Jan-31 17:27 UTC

head link

Re: [Xen-devel] Dynamic Memory Management and Migration (3.0.4-0)

On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 04:29:25PM +0100, Timo Benk
wrote:> Hello,
> 
> i noticed the following Problem:
> 
> if i want to allow dynamic memory management of Linux-domains, i need to
> set the following kernel parameter. Otherwise it is not possible, to
> increase the memory of the domain above the initial assigned value:
> 
> extra = "mem=10240M"
That should not be neccessary. We fixed the Hypervisor to implement the
neccessary magic so that XenD can utilize the ''maxmem''
parameter in
guest config files correctly So for example

  mem=500
  maxmem=800

Will make the guest VM boot up with 500 MB of initial RAM. It will also
tell it to allocate page tables entries big enough to address 800 MB of
RAM. So after boot up, you will be able to balloon the guest upto this
maxmimum of 800 MB simply using ''xm mem-set 800''.

Dan.
-- 
|=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston.  +1 978 392 2496 -=|
|=-           Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/              -=|
|=-               Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/               -=|
|=-  GnuPG: 7D3B9505   F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505  -=| 

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

Timo Benk

2007-Jan-31 22:58 UTC

head link

Re: [Xen-devel] Dynamic Memory Management and Migration (3.0.4-0)

Daniel P. Berrange wrote:> On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 04:29:25PM +0100, Timo Benk wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> i noticed the following Problem:
>>
>> if i want to allow dynamic memory management of Linux-domains, i need
to
>> set the following kernel parameter. Otherwise it is not possible, to
>> increase the memory of the domain above the initial assigned value:
>>
>> extra = "mem=10240M"
> 
> That should not be neccessary. We fixed the Hypervisor to implement the
> neccessary magic so that XenD can utilize the ''maxmem''
parameter in
> guest config files correctly So for example
> 
>   mem=500
>   maxmem=800
> 
> Will make the guest VM boot up with 500 MB of initial RAM. It will also
> tell it to allocate page tables entries big enough to address 800 MB of
> RAM. So after boot up, you will be able to balloon the guest upto this
> maxmimum of 800 MB simply using ''xm mem-set 800''.A quick test with 3.0.4-0 does not work on my side. I will try it again
tomorrow with 3.0.4-1. I dunno when the patch was applied to the xen source.

Her is what i have tried:

Domain-0:~ # xm create /etc/xen/vm/xendom1 -n
Using config file "/etc/xen/vm/xendom1".
(vm
    (name xendom1)
    (memory 256)
    (maxmem 512)
    (vcpus 1)
    (on_xend_start ignore)
    (on_xend_stop ignore)
    (cpu_cap 100)
    (cpu_weight 100)
    (image
        (linux
            (kernel /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.16.33-xenU)
            (ramdisk /boot/initrd-2.6.16.33-xenU)
            (root ''/dev/sda1 ro'')
        )
    )
    (device (vbd (uname phy:/dev/xenvol/xendom1_root) (dev sda1) (mode w)))
    (device (vbd (uname phy:/dev/xenvol/xendom1_swap) (dev sda2) (mode w)))
    (device (vif (mac 00:11:25:67:30:65)))
)

Domain-0:~ # xm create /etc/xen/vm/xendom1
Using config file "/etc/xen/vm/xendom1".
Started domain xendom1

Domain-0:~ # xm list
Name                                      ID   Mem VCPUs      State   Time(s)
Domain-0                                   0  2265     1     r-----   4834.5
xendom1                                    6   256     1     -b----      4.3

Domain-0:~ # xm mem-set xendom1 300
Domain-0:~ # xm list
Name                                      ID   Mem VCPUs      State   Time(s)

Domain-0                                   0  2265     1     r-----   4835.2
xendom1                                    6   257     1     ------     13.1

Domain-0:~ # ssh root@172.17.0.101
Last login: Wed Jan 31 23:56:00 2007 from 172.17.0.1
xendom1:~ # free
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:        262384     108404     153980          0       5840      63840
-/+ buffers/cache:      38724     223660
Swap:       524280          0     524280

xendom1:~ # logout
Connection to 172.17.0.101 closed.

Domain-0:~ # xm mem-set xendom1 400
Domain-0:~ # ssh root@172.17.0.101
Last login: Wed Jan 31 23:56:08 2007 from 172.17.0.128
xendom1:~ # free
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:        262384     108908     153476          0       6388      63812
-/+ buffers/cache:      38708     223676
Swap:       524280          0     524280
xendom1:~ #


Greetings,
-timo
-- 
Timo Benk - Jabber ID: fry@downtempo.de - ICQ ID: #414944731
PGP Public Key: http://m28s01.vlinux.de/timo_benk_gpg_key.asc


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

Timo Benk

2007-Feb-01 09:40 UTC

head link

Re: [Xen-devel] Dynamic Memory Management and Migration (3.0.4-0)

Timo Benk wrote:> Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 04:29:25PM +0100, Timo Benk wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> i noticed the following Problem:
>>>
>>> if i want to allow dynamic memory management of Linux-domains, i
need to
>>> set the following kernel parameter. Otherwise it is not possible,
to
>>> increase the memory of the domain above the initial assigned value:
>>>
>>> extra = "mem=10240M"
>> That should not be neccessary. We fixed the Hypervisor to implement the
>> neccessary magic so that XenD can utilize the
''maxmem'' parameter in
>> guest config files correctly So for example
>>
>>   mem=500
>>   maxmem=800
>>
>> Will make the guest VM boot up with 500 MB of initial RAM. It will also
>> tell it to allocate page tables entries big enough to address 800 MB of
>> RAM. So after boot up, you will be able to balloon the guest upto this
>> maxmimum of 800 MB simply using ''xm mem-set 800''.
> A quick test with 3.0.4-0 does not work on my side. I will try it again
> tomorrow with 3.0.4-1. I dunno when the patch was applied to the xen
source.
Setting only the maxmem Parameter does not work in 3.0.4-1 too.

Conclusion: Currently Dynamic Memory Management and Migration does not
work together in the current stable tree.

Anybody who knows when this feature will be available to the masses?
3.0.5 i assume?

greetings,
-timo
-- 
Timo Benk - Jabber ID: fry@downtempo.de - ICQ ID: #414944731
PGP Public Key: http://m28s01.vlinux.de/timo_benk_gpg_key.asc


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

Henning Sprang

2007-Feb-09 18:29 UTC

head link

Re: [Xen-devel] Dynamic Memory Management and Migration (3.0.4-0)

On 1/31/07, Timo Benk <timo.benk@gmx.de> wrote:> Hello,
>
> i noticed the following Problem:
>
> if i want to allow dynamic memory management of Linux-domains, i need to
> set the following kernel parameter. Otherwise it is not possible, to
> increase the memory of the domain above the initial assigned value:
>
> extra = "mem=10240M"
>
> But now it is not possible to migrate the domain. If try an offline
> migration, the xm-command hangs forever.
>
> One time i tried a live migration, the domain just disappears. The
> domain was neither running on the src-domain-0 nor on the dst-domain-0,
> the domain just vanished.
As promised I am starting slowly to get bugzilla a bit sorted. As I
did not work much with memory management scenarios, I''d like to know
if this might be connected to this bug:

http://bugzilla.xensource.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24

Otherwise I''d close this bug as ian suggested to close everything
older than some months.

Henning

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

Ian Pratt

2007-Feb-09 18:39 UTC

head link

RE: [Xen-devel] Dynamic Memory Management and Migration (3.0.4-0)

> > if i want to allow dynamic memory management of Linux-domains, i
need to> > set the following kernel parameter. Otherwise it is not possible, to
> > increase the memory of the domain above the initial assigned value:
> >
> > extra = "mem=10240M"
> >
> > But now it is not possible to migrate the domain. If try an offline
> > migration, the xm-command hangs forever.
> >
> > One time i tried a live migration, the domain just disappears. The
> > domain was neither running on the src-domain-0 nor on the
dst-domain-0,> > the domain just vanished.
> 
> As promised I am starting slowly to get bugzilla a bit sorted. 
Great, thanks.
> As I did not work much with memory management scenarios, I''d like
to
know> if this might be connected to this bug:
> 
> http://bugzilla.xensource.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24
> 
> Otherwise I''d close this bug as ian suggested to close everything
> older than some months.
I doubt this is related to Timo''s problems, but I think the actual
bugzilla issue #24 is now fixed: Steve -- you checked in some lazy
memory allocation in xc_restore, right?


Ian



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

Liang Yang

2007-Feb-09 19:16 UTC

head link

[Xen-users] Can Xen run 32, 32PAE and 64-bit fully virtualized domains run side-by-side?

Hi,

Can Xen run 32, 32PAE and 64-bit fully virtualized domains run side-by-side? 
Or all DomainUF has to be the same mode?

Thanks,

Liang


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

Krysan, Susan

2007-Feb-09 20:18 UTC

head link

RE: [Xen-users] Can Xen run 32, 32PAE and 64-bit fully virtualized domains run side-by-side?

Yes, on an x86_64 host you can run a mix of 32-bit, 32-bit PAE, and
64-bit fully virtualized domains side-by-side.  I have also run 64-bit
paravirtualized domains side-by-side with fully virtualized domains.

Weekly I boot up the following domains simultaneously on x86_64 host: 

SMP 64-bit SLES10 paravirtualized domain 
SMP 32-bit SLES10 fully virtualized domain 
SMP 32-bit PAE SLES10 fully virtualized domain
SMP 64-bit SLES10 fully virtualized domain
UP Windows XP fully virtualized domain
UP Windows 2003 Server fully virtualized domain

Once the domains have booted, I log in and run top command in the SLES10
guests and Windows task manager in the Windows guests.

Thanks,
Sue Krysan
Linux Systems Group
Unisys Corporation
 
-----Original Message-----
From: xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com
[mailto:xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Liang Yang
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 2:17 PM
To: xen-users@lists.xensource.com
Cc: Xen devel list
Subject: [Xen-users] Can Xen run 32,32PAE and 64-bit fully virtualized
domains run side-by-side?

Hi,

Can Xen run 32, 32PAE and 64-bit fully virtualized domains run
side-by-side? 
Or all DomainUF has to be the same mode?

Thanks,

Liang


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

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

Liang Yang

2007-Feb-09 21:04 UTC

head link

[Xen-users] Any difference between live migrating of para-virtualized and full-virtualized domains?

Hi,

I''m just wondering if Xen treats para-virtualized and full-virtualized 
domain differently when doing live migration?

Thanks,

Liang


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

Steven Hand

2007-Feb-09 22:45 UTC

head link

Re: [Xen-devel] Dynamic Memory Management and Migration (3.0.4-0)

>I doubt this is related to Timo''s problems, but I think the actual
>bugzilla issue #24 is now fixed: Steve -- you checked in some lazy
>memory allocation in xc_restore, right?
Yes, in -unstable cset 13386:895d873a00b47cb7b0edf3d0b6a42f47a3f4854c 
(Jan 16th). 


cheers,

S.



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

Mark Williamson

2007-Feb-10 11:49 UTC

head link

Re: [Xen-users] Any difference between live migrating of para-virtualized and full-virtualized domains?

> I''m just wondering if Xen treats para-virtualized and
full-virtualized
> domain differently when doing live migration?
The process is similar, but there''s a different set of state to be
migrated.
Also, PV guests participate more actively in the migration than FV guests do.

I''m not sure if FV live migration is in mainline yet.  I''d
imagine they''re
pretty similar from the user''s point of view.

Cheers,
Mark

-- 
Dave: Just a question. What use is a unicyle with no seat?  And no pedals!
Mark: To answer a question with a question: What use is a skateboard?
Dave: Skateboards have wheels.
Mark: My wheel has a wheel!

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

Mark Williamson

2007-Feb-10 11:51 UTC

head link

Re: [Xen-users] Can Xen run 32, 32PAE and 64-bit fully virtualized domains run side-by-side?

On Friday 09 February 2007 20:18, Krysan, Susan wrote:> Yes, on an x86_64 host you can run a mix of 32-bit, 32-bit PAE, and
> 64-bit fully virtualized domains side-by-side.  I have also run 64-bit
> paravirtualized domains side-by-side with fully virtualized domains.
It should be possible to run 32-bit PAE paravirtualised guests side-by-side 
with 64-bit workloads as well in a future release - maybe 3.0.5, I''m
not
sure.

I''m not aware of any plans to make 32-bit non-PAE work on a 64-bit
hypervisor
at the moment, but everything else appears to be covered.

Cheers,
Mark
> Weekly I boot up the following domains simultaneously on x86_64 host:
>
> SMP 64-bit SLES10 paravirtualized domain
> SMP 32-bit SLES10 fully virtualized domain
> SMP 32-bit PAE SLES10 fully virtualized domain
> SMP 64-bit SLES10 fully virtualized domain
> UP Windows XP fully virtualized domain
> UP Windows 2003 Server fully virtualized domain
>
> Once the domains have booted, I log in and run top command in the SLES10
> guests and Windows task manager in the Windows guests.
>
> Thanks,
> Sue Krysan
> Linux Systems Group
> Unisys Corporation
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com
> [mailto:xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Liang Yang
> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 2:17 PM
> To: xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> Cc: Xen devel list
> Subject: [Xen-users] Can Xen run 32,32PAE and 64-bit fully virtualized
> domains run side-by-side?
>
> Hi,
>
> Can Xen run 32, 32PAE and 64-bit fully virtualized domains run
> side-by-side?
> Or all DomainUF has to be the same mode?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Liang
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
-- 
Dave: Just a question. What use is a unicyle with no seat?  And no pedals!
Mark: To answer a question with a question: What use is a skateboard?
Dave: Skateboards have wheels.
Mark: My wheel has a wheel!

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

Petersson, Mats

2007-Feb-12 11:48 UTC

head link

RE: [Xen-users] Any difference between live migrating of para-virtualized and full-virtualized domains?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com 
> [mailto:xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of 
> Mark Williamson
> Sent: 10 February 2007 11:49
> To: xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> Cc: Liang Yang
> Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Any difference between live 
> migrating of para-virtualized and full-virtualized domains?
> 
> > I''m just wondering if Xen treats para-virtualized and 
> full-virtualized
> > domain differently when doing live migration?
> 
> The process is similar, but there''s a different set of state 
> to be migrated.  
> Also, PV guests participate more actively in the migration 
> than FV guests do.
> 
> I''m not sure if FV live migration is in mainline yet. 
I''d
> imagine they''re 
> pretty similar from the user''s point of view.
FV (HVM) save/restore is currently working (although there are probably
a few reliability bugs - after a few hundred save/restore cycles, the
guest may crash). [There''s been a couple of patches since I tried it
last time, so it is possible that it''s been fixed - although none of
the
patches mentions "fixes reliability", so it would be a "chance
fix",
rather than a "intentional fix" in that case]. 

Live migration is a bit further in the future, as it relies on
"Log-dirty" to track the pages that have been written to since the
original copy of the pages. Since this feature isn''t in the
shadow-paging code that HVM uses, it''s not going to work until
log-dirty
is supported, which is unknown when this will happen. 

Currently live-migration aborts in xc_hvm_save() with a message of
"can''t do live migration" (or something like that) - but
removing that
error message wouldn''t REALLY fix anything, as log-dirty is still not
working.

As Mark says, xm save/restore/migrate should be exactly the same for
both types of domains, so the user doesn''t need to know whether
it''s a
PV or FV domain that is being saved/restored/migrated. 

--
Mats

> 
> Cheers,
> Mark
> 
> -- 
> Dave: Just a question. What use is a unicyle with no seat?  
> And no pedals!
> Mark: To answer a question with a question: What use is a skateboard?
> Dave: Skateboards have wheels.
> Mark: My wheel has a wheel!
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> 
> 
> 


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

Liang Yang

2007-Feb-13 18:48 UTC

head link

[Xen-users] Does VBD PV drivers include IOAT support?

Hi,

I''m just wondering if the current VBD PV drivers already include IOAT 
support. If not, does XenSource have any plan to include it? Could anyone 
here gave me some information about this?

Thanks,

Liang


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

Omer Khalid

2007-Feb-16 15:48 UTC

head link

Re: [Xen-users] Can Xen run 32, 32PAE and 64-bit fully virtualized domains run side-by-side?

Hello Krysan,

I am trying to run 32 bit PAE Para-virtualized VM on a x86_64 with Xen
3.0.364 bit. I always get this error: Xen Image is not compatiable.

You said in one of your messages on the Xen user list that you are running
32 bit, 32 bit PAE and 64 bit para-virtualized and HVM VM''s with out
any
problems, where as in some threads from Jan 2007, it was argued that its not
possible! I  am confused!

Which version of Xen are you using? And are there specific configuration one
have to make for domU images?

Any help would be much appreciated! Best Regards

Omer

On 2/9/07, Krysan, Susan <KRYSANS@unisys.com>
wrote:>
> Yes, on an x86_64 host you can run a mix of 32-bit, 32-bit PAE, and
> 64-bit fully virtualized domains side-by-side.  I have also run 64-bit
> paravirtualized domains side-by-side with fully virtualized domains.
>
> Weekly I boot up the following domains simultaneously on x86_64 host:
>
> SMP 64-bit SLES10 paravirtualized domain
> SMP 32-bit SLES10 fully virtualized domain
> SMP 32-bit PAE SLES10 fully virtualized domain
> SMP 64-bit SLES10 fully virtualized domain
> UP Windows XP fully virtualized domain
> UP Windows 2003 Server fully virtualized domain
>
> Once the domains have booted, I log in and run top command in the SLES10
> guests and Windows task manager in the Windows guests.
>
> Thanks,
> Sue Krysan
> Linux Systems Group
> Unisys Corporation
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com
> [mailto:xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Liang Yang
> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 2:17 PM
> To: xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> Cc: Xen devel list
> Subject: [Xen-users] Can Xen run 32,32PAE and 64-bit fully virtualized
> domains run side-by-side?
>
> Hi,
>
> Can Xen run 32, 32PAE and 64-bit fully virtualized domains run
> side-by-side?
> Or all DomainUF has to be the same mode?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Liang
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------


CERN – European Organization for Nuclear
IT Department,  CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland

Phone: +41 (0) 22 767 7996
Fax:     +41 (0) 22 767 4900
E-mail : Omer.Khalid@cern.ch
Homepage: http://cern.ch/Omer.Khalid


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

Petersson, Mats

2007-Feb-16 16:13 UTC

head link

RE: [Xen-users] Can Xen run 32, 32PAE and 64-bit fully virtualized domains run side-by-side?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com 
> [mailto:xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of 
> Omer Khalid
> Sent: 16 February 2007 15:49
> To: Krysan, Susan
> Cc: Petersson, Mats; Gerd Hoffmann; Daniel P. Berrange; 
> xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Can Xen run 32, 32PAE and 64-bit 
> fully virtualized domains run side-by-side?
> 
> Hello Krysan,
> 
> I am trying to run 32 bit PAE Para-virtualized VM on a x86_64 
> with Xen 3.0.3 64 bit. I always get this error: Xen Image is 
> not compatiable.
That is the expected behaviour for 3.0.3. Current unstable (to become
3.0.5) contains code to fix this for 32PAE on 64. I don''t know if there
are any problems running 32PAE on 64 at the moment [it''s not what
I''m
working on, so I haven''t tried it] - but one thing is for sure, until
the release of 3.0.5, there is no stable release that supports different
bitness in the guest and the hypervisor/Dom0. 
> 
> You said in one of your messages on the Xen user list that 
> you are running 32 bit, 32 bit PAE and 64 bit 
> para-virtualized and HVM VM''s with out any problems, where as 
> in some threads from Jan 2007, it was argued that its not 
> possible! I  am confused! 
You can only (in current stable realeases of Xen) run "same on same"
PV
guests. HVM guest are able to run "less or equal", meaning that a
64-bit
hypervisor supports "all" types of guests, but a 32-bit hypervisor
won''t
support 64-bit guests (and non-PAE hypervisor can''t take PAE guests). 
> 
> Which version of Xen are you using? And are there specific 
> configuration one have to make for domU images?
Read again what Susan wrote (copied here for clarity):> Yes, on an x86_64 host you can run a mix of 32-bit, 
> 32-bit PAE, and	64-bit fully virtualized domains side-by-side.All of those are FULLY VIRTUALIZAED guests (that is HVM or non-PV
guests, whatever you want to call it. 
>I have also run 64-bit	paravirtualized domains side-by-side with fully 
> virtualized domains.
Still not claiming to run para-virtual at anything other than "same as
Dom0". 

--
Mats

> 
> Any help would be much appreciated! Best Regards
> 
> Omer
> 
> 
> On 2/9/07, Krysan, Susan <KRYSANS@unisys.com> wrote:
> 
> 	Yes, on an x86_64 host you can run a mix of 32-bit, 
> 32-bit PAE, and
> 	64-bit fully virtualized domains side-by-side.  I have 
> also run 64-bit
> 	paravirtualized domains side-by-side with fully 
> virtualized domains.
> 	
> 	Weekly I boot up the following domains simultaneously 
> on x86_64 host:
> 	
> 	SMP 64-bit SLES10 paravirtualized domain
> 	SMP 32-bit SLES10 fully virtualized domain
> 	SMP 32-bit PAE SLES10 fully virtualized domain
> 	SMP 64-bit SLES10 fully virtualized domain 
> 	UP Windows XP fully virtualized domain
> 	UP Windows 2003 Server fully virtualized domain
> 	
> 	Once the domains have booted, I log in and run top 
> command in the SLES10
> 	guests and Windows task manager in the Windows guests. 
> 	
> 	Thanks,
> 	Sue Krysan
> 	Linux Systems Group
> 	Unisys Corporation
> 	
> 	-----Original Message-----
> 	From: xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com
> 	[mailto: xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On 
> Behalf Of Liang Yang
> 	Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 2:17 PM
> 	To: xen-users@lists.xensource.com 
> 	Cc: Xen devel list
> 	Subject: [Xen-users] Can Xen run 32,32PAE and 64-bit 
> fully virtualized
> 	domains run side-by-side?
> 	
> 	Hi,
> 	
> 	Can Xen run 32, 32PAE and 64-bit fully virtualized domains run
> 	side-by-side? 
> 	Or all DomainUF has to be the same mode?
> 	
> 	Thanks,
> 	
> 	Liang
> 	
> 	
> 	_______________________________________________
> 	Xen-users mailing list
> 	Xen-users@lists.xensource.com 
> 	http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> 	
> 	_______________________________________________
> 	Xen-users mailing list
> 	Xen-users@lists.xensource.com 
> <mailto:Xen-users@lists.xensource.com> 
> 	http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> 	
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> --------------------------------------------------------------- 
>                                                               
>                
> CERN - European Organization for Nuclear 
> IT Department,  CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland
> 
> Phone: +41 (0) 22 767 7996
> Fax:     +41 (0) 22 767 4900 
> E-mail : Omer.Khalid@cern.ch
> Homepage: http://cern.ch/Omer.Khalid 
> 


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

Omer Khalid

2007-Feb-19 10:30 UTC

head link

Re: [Xen-users] Can Xen run 32, 32PAE and 64-bit fully virtualized domains run side-by-side?

Hello Mats,

I really appreciate your prompt reply. Just to be 100% sure and not to
assume some thing in the "verbal language", I made this table to lay
out the
bit-landscape of dom0/domU for clarity purpose for Xen 3.0.5!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                       |                       dom0
              |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                       |     Para-virtualized        |
Fully-virtualized        |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                       |  32-bit | 32-bit-p | 64-bit | 32-bit | 32-bit-p |
64-bit |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  d    |              |
|
|  o
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  m   |   32-bit   |    Y     |     N     |   N     |    Y    |     Y
|    Y   |
|  a
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  i     |              |
                |
|  n
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|        |  32bit-P |    N     |     Y     |   N     |     N   |      Y
|     Y   |
|  U
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|        |              |
|
|        |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|        |   64-bit  |    N     |     N     |   Y     |     N   |      N
|     Y   |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Would you agree with this?

Regards
Omer


On 2/16/07, Petersson, Mats <Mats.Petersson@amd.com>
wrote:>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com
> > [mailto: xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of
> > Omer Khalid
> > Sent: 16 February 2007 15:49
> > To: Krysan, Susan
> > Cc: Petersson, Mats; Gerd Hoffmann; Daniel P. Berrange;
> > xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> > Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Can Xen run 32, 32PAE and 64-bit
> > fully virtualized domains run side-by-side?
> >
> > Hello Krysan,
> >
> > I am trying to run 32 bit PAE Para-virtualized VM on a x86_64
> > with Xen 3.0.3 64 bit. I always get this error: Xen Image is
> > not compatiable.
>
> That is the expected behaviour for 3.0.3. Current unstable (to become
> 3.0.5) contains code to fix this for 32PAE on 64. I don''t know if
there
> are any problems running 32PAE on 64 at the moment [it''s not what
I''m
> working on, so I haven''t tried it] - but one thing is for sure,
until
> the release of 3.0.5, there is no stable release that supports different
> bitness in the guest and the hypervisor/Dom0.
>
> >
> > You said in one of your messages on the Xen user list that
> > you are running 32 bit, 32 bit PAE and 64 bit
> > para-virtualized and HVM VM''s with out any problems, where as
> > in some threads from Jan 2007, it was argued that its not
> > possible! I  am confused!
>
> You can only (in current stable realeases of Xen) run "same on
same" PV
> guests. HVM guest are able to run "less or equal", meaning that a
64-bit
> hypervisor supports "all" types of guests, but a 32-bit
hypervisor won''t
> support 64-bit guests (and non-PAE hypervisor can''t take PAE
guests).
>
> >
> > Which version of Xen are you using? And are there specific
> > configuration one have to make for domU images?
>
> Read again what Susan wrote (copied here for clarity):
> > Yes, on an x86_64 host you can run a mix of 32-bit,
> > 32-bit PAE, and       64-bit fully virtualized domains side-by-side.
> All of those are FULLY VIRTUALIZAED guests (that is HVM or non-PV
> guests, whatever you want to call it.
>
> >I have also run 64-bit paravirtualized domains side-by-side with fully
> > virtualized domains.
>
> Still not claiming to run para-virtual at anything other than "same as
> Dom0".
>
> --
> Mats
>
>
> >
> > Any help would be much appreciated! Best Regards
> >
> > Omer
> >
> >
> > On 2/9/07, Krysan, Susan <KRYSANS@unisys.com> wrote:
> >
> >       Yes, on an x86_64 host you can run a mix of 32-bit,
> > 32-bit PAE, and
> >       64-bit fully virtualized domains side-by-side.  I have
> > also run 64-bit
> >       paravirtualized domains side-by-side with fully
> > virtualized domains.
> >
> >       Weekly I boot up the following domains simultaneously
> > on x86_64 host:
> >
> >       SMP 64-bit SLES10 paravirtualized domain
> >       SMP 32-bit SLES10 fully virtualized domain
> >       SMP 32-bit PAE SLES10 fully virtualized domain
> >       SMP 64-bit SLES10 fully virtualized domain
> >       UP Windows XP fully virtualized domain
> >       UP Windows 2003 Server fully virtualized domain
> >
> >       Once the domains have booted, I log in and run top
> > command in the SLES10
> >       guests and Windows task manager in the Windows guests.
> >
> >       Thanks,
> >       Sue Krysan
> >       Linux Systems Group
> >       Unisys Corporation
> >
> >       -----Original Message-----
> >       From: xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com
> >       [mailto: xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com ] On
> > Behalf Of Liang Yang
> >       Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 2:17 PM
> >       To: xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> >       Cc: Xen devel list
> >       Subject: [Xen-users] Can Xen run 32,32PAE and 64-bit
> > fully virtualized
> >       domains run side-by-side?
> >
> >       Hi,
> >
> >       Can Xen run 32, 32PAE and 64-bit fully virtualized domains run
> >       side-by-side?
> >       Or all DomainUF has to be the same mode?
> >
> >       Thanks,
> >
> >       Liang
> >
> >
> >       _______________________________________________
> >       Xen-users mailing list
> >       Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> >       http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> >
> >       _______________________________________________
> >       Xen-users mailing list
> >       Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> > <mailto: Xen-users@lists.xensource.com>
> >       http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > CERN - European Organization for Nuclear
> > IT Department,  CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland
> >
> > Phone: +41 (0) 22 767 7996
> > Fax:     +41 (0) 22 767 4900
> > E-mail : Omer.Khalid@cern.ch
> > Homepage: http://cern.ch/Omer.Khalid
> >
>
>
>

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------


CERN – European Organization for Nuclear
IT Department,  CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland

Phone: +41 (0) 22 767 7996
Fax:     +41 (0) 22 767 4900
E-mail : Omer.Khalid@cern.ch
Homepage: http://cern.ch/Omer.Khalid


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

Petersson, Mats

2007-Feb-19 10:53 UTC

head link

RE: [Xen-users] Can Xen run 32, 32PAE and 64-bit fully virtualized domains run side-by-side?

Actually, for 3.0.4 the below table is correct [which my mailer decided
to completely clobber when it quited it, as per expected] 

This is correct (if XenSource does what they have promised) for 3.0.5
(not yet released):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------
|                       |                       dom0
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------- 
|                       |     Para-virtualized        |
Fully-virtualized        |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------       
|                       |  32-bit | 32-bit-p | 64-bit | 32-bit |
32-bit-p | 64-bit | 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------
|  d    |              |
|
|  o
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------- 
|  m   |   32-bit   |    Y     |     N     |   N     |     Y    |     Y
|    Y   |
|  a
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------|
|   i     |              |
|
|  n
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------|
|        |  32bit-P |    N     |     Y     |   !Y!    |     N   |      Y
|     Y   |
                                              ^^^^^
|   U
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------|
|        |              |
|
|
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------| 
|        |   64-bit  |    N     |     N     |   Y     |      N   |
N     |     Y   |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------

So, with 3.0.5 it should work to run 32P on 64. 


--
Mats
> -----Original Message-----
> From: okhalid.cern@gmail.com [mailto:okhalid.cern@gmail.com] 
> On Behalf Of Omer Khalid
> Sent: 19 February 2007 10:30
> To: Petersson, Mats
> Cc: Krysan, Susan; Gerd Hoffmann; Daniel P. Berrange; 
> xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Can Xen run 32, 32PAE and 64-bit 
> fully virtualized domains run side-by-side?
> 
> Hello Mats,
> 
> I really appreciate your prompt reply. Just to be 100% sure 
> and not to assume some thing in the "verbal language", I made 
> this table to lay out the bit-landscape of dom0/domU for 
> clarity purpose for Xen 3.0.5!
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------
> |                       |                       dom0          
>                              |
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------- 
> |                       |     Para-virtualized        |    
> Fully-virtualized        |
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------       
> |                       |  32-bit | 32-bit-p | 64-bit | 
> 32-bit | 32-bit-p | 64-bit | 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------
> |  d    |              |                                      
>                                  |
> |  o    
> |-------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------- 
> |  m   |   32-bit   |    Y     |     N     |   N     |     Y  
>   |     Y      |    Y   |
> |  a    
> |-------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------|
> |   i     |              |                                    
>                                    |
> |  n    
> |-------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------|
> |        |  32bit-P |    N     |     Y     |   N     |     N  
>  |      Y     |     Y   |
> |   U    
> |-------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------|
> |        |              |                                     
>                                   |
> |        
> |-------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------| 
> |        |   64-bit  |    N     |     N     |   Y     |      
> N   |      N     |     Y   |
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------
> 
> Would you agree with this?
> 
> Regards
> Omer
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/16/07, Petersson, Mats <Mats.Petersson@amd.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 	> -----Original Message-----
> 	> From: xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com 
> 	> [mailto: xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com 
> <mailto:xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com> ] On Behalf Of
> 	> Omer Khalid
> 	> Sent: 16 February 2007 15:49
> 	> To: Krysan, Susan
> 	> Cc: Petersson, Mats; Gerd Hoffmann; Daniel P. Berrange;
> 	> xen-users@lists.xensource.com 
> <mailto:xen-users@lists.xensource.com> 
> 	> Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Can Xen run 32, 32PAE and 64-bit
> 	> fully virtualized domains run side-by-side?
> 	>
> 	> Hello Krysan,
> 	>
> 	> I am trying to run 32 bit PAE Para-virtualized VM on a x86_64 
> 	> with Xen 3.0.3 64 bit. I always get this error: Xen Image is
> 	> not compatiable.
> 	
> 	That is the expected behaviour for 3.0.3. Current 
> unstable (to become
> 	3.0.5) contains code to fix this for 32PAE on 64. I 
> don''t know if there 
> 	are any problems running 32PAE on 64 at the moment 
> [it''s not what I''m
> 	working on, so I haven''t tried it] - but one thing is 
> for sure, until
> 	the release of 3.0.5, there is no stable release that 
> supports different 
> 	bitness in the guest and the hypervisor/Dom0.
> 	
> 	>
> 	> You said in one of your messages on the Xen user list that
> 	> you are running 32 bit, 32 bit PAE and 64 bit
> 	> para-virtualized and HVM VM''s with out any problems, where
as
> 	> in some threads from Jan 2007, it was argued that its not
> 	> possible! I  am confused!
> 	
> 	You can only (in current stable realeases of Xen) run 
> "same on same" PV
> 	guests. HVM guest are able to run "less or equal", 
> meaning that a 64-bit 
> 	hypervisor supports "all" types of guests, but a 32-bit 
> hypervisor won''t
> 	support 64-bit guests (and non-PAE hypervisor can''t 
> take PAE guests).
> 	
> 	>
> 	> Which version of Xen are you using? And are there specific 
> 	> configuration one have to make for domU images?
> 	
> 	Read again what Susan wrote (copied here for clarity):
> 	> Yes, on an x86_64 host you can run a mix of 32-bit,
> 	> 32-bit PAE, and       64-bit fully virtualized 
> domains side-by-side. 
> 	All of those are FULLY VIRTUALIZAED guests (that is HVM 
> or non-PV
> 	guests, whatever you want to call it.
> 	
> 	>I have also run 64-bit paravirtualized domains 
> side-by-side with fully
> 	> virtualized domains. 
> 	
> 	Still not claiming to run para-virtual at anything 
> other than "same as
> 	Dom0".
> 	
> 	--
> 	Mats
> 	
> 	
> 	>
> 	> Any help would be much appreciated! Best Regards
> 	>
> 	> Omer
> 	>
> 	>
> 	> On 2/9/07, Krysan, Susan <KRYSANS@unisys.com> wrote:
> 	>
> 	>       Yes, on an x86_64 host you can run a mix of 32-bit, 
> 	> 32-bit PAE, and
> 	>       64-bit fully virtualized domains side-by-side.  I have 
> 	> also run 64-bit
> 	>       paravirtualized domains side-by-side with fully
> 	> virtualized domains.
> 	>
> 	>       Weekly I boot up the following domains simultaneously
> 	> on x86_64 host:
> 	> 
> 	>       SMP 64-bit SLES10 paravirtualized domain
> 	>       SMP 32-bit SLES10 fully virtualized domain
> 	>       SMP 32-bit PAE SLES10 fully virtualized domain
> 	>       SMP 64-bit SLES10 fully virtualized domain 
> 	>       UP Windows XP fully virtualized domain
> 	>       UP Windows 2003 Server fully virtualized domain
> 	>
> 	>       Once the domains have booted, I log in and run top
> 	> command in the SLES10
> 	>       guests and Windows task manager in the Windows guests.
> 	>
> 	>       Thanks,
> 	>       Sue Krysan
> 	>       Linux Systems Group
> 	>       Unisys Corporation
> 	>
> 	>       -----Original Message----- 
> 	>       From: xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com
> 	>       [mailto: xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com 
> <mailto:xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com> ] On
> 	> Behalf Of Liang Yang
> 	>       Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 2:17 PM
> 	>       To: xen-users@lists.xensource.com 
> <mailto:xen-users@lists.xensource.com> 
> 	>       Cc: Xen devel list 
> 	>       Subject: [Xen-users] Can Xen run 32,32PAE and 64-bit
> 	> fully virtualized
> 	>       domains run side-by-side?
> 	>
> 	>       Hi,
> 	>
> 	>       Can Xen run 32, 32PAE and 64-bit fully 
> virtualized domains run 
> 	>       side-by-side?
> 	>       Or all DomainUF has to be the same mode?
> 	>
> 	>       Thanks,
> 	>
> 	>       Liang
> 	>
> 	>
> 	>       _______________________________________________
> 	>       Xen-users mailing list
> 	>       Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> 	>       http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users 
> <http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users> 
> 	>
> 	>       _______________________________________________
> 	>       Xen-users mailing list
> 	>       Xen-users@lists.xensource.com 
> <mailto:Xen-users@lists.xensource.com> 
> 	> <mailto: Xen-users@lists.xensource.com>
> 	>       http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users 
> <http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users> 
> 	>
> 	>
> 	>
> 	>
> 	>
> 	> --
> 	> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 	>
> 	>
> 	> CERN - European Organization for Nuclear
> 	> IT Department,  CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland
> 	>
> 	> Phone: +41 (0) 22 767 7996 
> 	> Fax:     +41 (0) 22 767 4900
> 	> E-mail : Omer.Khalid@cern.ch
> 	> Homepage: http://cern.ch/Omer.Khalid 
> <http://cern.ch/Omer.Khalid> 
> 	>
> 	
> 	
> 	
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>                                                               
>                
> CERN - European Organization for Nuclear 
> IT Department,  CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland
> 
> Phone: +41 (0) 22 767 7996
> Fax:     +41 (0) 22 767 4900
> E-mail : Omer.Khalid@cern.ch <mailto:Omer.Khalid@cern.ch> 
> Homepage: http://cern.ch/Omer.Khalid <http://cern.ch/Omer.Khalid>  
> 


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

Xen users - Jan 2007 - Dynamic Memory Management and Migration (3.0.4-0)

[Xen-devel] Dynamic Memory Management and Migration (3.0.4-0)

Re: [Xen-devel] Dynamic Memory Management and Migration (3.0.4-0)

Re: [Xen-devel] Dynamic Memory Management and Migration (3.0.4-0)

Re: [Xen-devel] Dynamic Memory Management and Migration (3.0.4-0)

Re: [Xen-devel] Dynamic Memory Management and Migration (3.0.4-0)

Re: [Xen-devel] Dynamic Memory Management and Migration (3.0.4-0)

Re: [Xen-devel] Dynamic Memory Management and Migration (3.0.4-0)

Re: [Xen-devel] Dynamic Memory Management and Migration (3.0.4-0)

RE: [Xen-devel] Dynamic Memory Management and Migration (3.0.4-0)

[Xen-users] Can Xen run 32, 32PAE and 64-bit fully virtualized domains run side-by-side?

RE: [Xen-users] Can Xen run 32, 32PAE and 64-bit fully virtualized domains run side-by-side?

[Xen-users] Any difference between live migrating of para-virtualized and full-virtualized domains?

Re: [Xen-devel] Dynamic Memory Management and Migration (3.0.4-0)

Re: [Xen-users] Any difference between live migrating of para-virtualized and full-virtualized domains?

Re: [Xen-users] Can Xen run 32, 32PAE and 64-bit fully virtualized domains run side-by-side?

RE: [Xen-users] Any difference between live migrating of para-virtualized and full-virtualized domains?

[Xen-users] Does VBD PV drivers include IOAT support?

Re: [Xen-users] Can Xen run 32, 32PAE and 64-bit fully virtualized domains run side-by-side?

RE: [Xen-users] Can Xen run 32, 32PAE and 64-bit fully virtualized domains run side-by-side?

Re: [Xen-users] Can Xen run 32, 32PAE and 64-bit fully virtualized domains run side-by-side?

RE: [Xen-users] Can Xen run 32, 32PAE and 64-bit fully virtualized domains run side-by-side?