Hello to all, I''ve got literally hundreds of servers running various versions of Xen. Running now is everything from 2.0.6 to 3.0.4-testing. Some servers for various reasons need to stick to various kernels or versions of Xen to stay happy. This is now becoming problematic since the servers are in over 20 different facilities around the globe. By 3.0.5 , I will be drowning in kernels.>From 2.0.6 - 3.0.4-testing is quite a few Linux kernels, and I reallywant to get newer stuff into older Kernels. I also want to look at newer API functionality in older versions. I want to look at making 2.0.6 go away totally, making 2.0.7 the only v2 build and kernel we have. I want to look at a more modern kernel for them too. To make things more complex, we''ve modified the grand makefile for every version to deliver us our customized install. I know that Mercurial can help me do this and is the only sane way to go about it. Trying to start at the end and cherry pick my way back is going to be .. horrible otherwise. 2.0.7 for example would actually have 3 - 5 immutable versions therein as we changed quite a bit. I found this quick start guide from when Xen moved over from BK: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/srg/netos/xen/readmes/hg-cheatsheet.txt I was never a big BK user. Usually the only time I touch a repository is to mooch, and this guide is brief at best. I''m looking for the fastest way to mercurial with real world examples, I need to learn and build at the same time unfortunately. My hope is one exists, which examples Xen :) Thanks in advance for any help ! Best, --Tim _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Nico Kadel-Garcia
2007-Mar-11 14:41 UTC
Re: [Xen-users] Mercurial Quick Start Guide Featuring Xen?
Tim Post wrote:> I want to look at making 2.0.6 go away totally, making 2.0.7 the only > v2 build and kernel we have. I want to look at a more modern kernel > for them too.Why do you have to use 2.0.x for anything today? _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Sun, 2007-03-11 at 14:41 +0000, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:> Tim Post wrote: > > > I want to look at making 2.0.6 go away totally, making 2.0.7 the only > > v2 build and kernel we have. I want to look at a more modern kernel > > for them too. > > Why do you have to use 2.0.x for anything today?Existing paravirtualized Open SSI clusters that will break horribly under Xen 3 and can not be removed. They have been up happily for quite a while now. Fair question, however :)>_______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Mark Williamson
2007-Mar-12 05:05 UTC
Re: [Xen-users] Mercurial Quick Start Guide Featuring Xen?
> > Why do you have to use 2.0.x for anything today? > > Existing paravirtualized Open SSI clusters that will break horribly > under Xen 3 and can not be removed. They have been up happily for quite > a while now. > > Fair question, however :)That''s unfortunate. If you had any HVM capable machines you could run those domains using a native OpenSSI kernel instead of paravirt... Or possibly just run Xen 2.0 in an HVM virtual machine (I''d imagine that''d work; I find Xen 3 runs quite fine under HVM for development work - with a few quirks and a bit of a slowdown). 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
On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 05:05 +0000, Mark Williamson wrote:> > > Why do you have to use 2.0.x for anything today? > > > > Existing paravirtualized Open SSI clusters that will break horribly > > under Xen 3 and can not be removed. They have been up happily for quite > > a while now. > > > > Fair question, however :) > > That''s unfortunate.I wouldn''t go as far as to call it unfortunate. 2.0.7 was available, stable and quite capable of filling a rather unique need. The only thing undesirable about it is its age.> If you had any HVM capable machines you could run those > domains using a native OpenSSI kernel instead of paravirt...Still brings me back to hoping for help from Mercurial to get the patches that we made that apply *only* to the stock parts of SSI to be applied to the new kernels. Also still leaves me with the odd mix of other stuff. Part of the reason for the mess is customizations got written into place and were made version dependent. Mercurial (I think) can give me a birds eye view to straighten out the whole mess once and for all. It is now bad, imagine another year worth of new servers being racked and new versions of Xen.> Or possibly > just run Xen 2.0 in an HVM virtual machine (I''d imagine that''d work; I find > Xen 3 runs quite fine under HVM for development work - with a few quirks and > a bit of a slowdown).Unfortunately these things are pretty I/O hungry. I tried both stock SSI and 2.0.7 as a HVM on some socket AM2''s. Both worked, neither worked well enough that I''d consider putting traffic to them. It wasn''t just I/O, process migration got ''fickle'' for lack of a better word. I did not spend as much time on it as I wanted to. I think half of the problem was things in ssi-debian (sarge) itself, not just the fact that it was HVM. I have not given up on getting a 2.6.16 xen-ssi PV kernel working, nor given up on the idea that such a thing would use ocfs2 :) Its just hard to get others interested in working on it, by the time one person can finish it you''ll be at xen 4.0 :|> > Cheers, > Mark >Best, --Tim _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users