This sounds to me like an emotional (over)reaction to a bug in Xen. I have also run across this flaw in Xen (Novell''s version of it, anyway - don''t know if all of the Xen versions are tainted) and have resigned myself to running my multi-processor Windows VMs on my VMware ESX servers instead of on XEN. Yes, it''s annoying, and yes I can see how you''d me a little ticked off after losing so much time to it, but, Xen still functions perfectly fine on SLES10 SP2 for me - I have four physical machines, all running SLES10 SP2 with somewhere on the order of 40 or so domUs on those four machines, and plenty of capacity to spare. Very useful, not dead. And, probably 25 of those 40 domUs are HVM domUs running Windows XP. One of them is Solaris, and the rest are various versions of Linux. So, to recap: 1) Yes, there''s a bug in there somewhere that makes running a multi-processor Windows-based HVM crash. 2) You can still run Windows on XEN - maybe just not in your environment. 3) XEN is still very, very useful - maybe just not for what you''re trying to do right now. 4) XEN is not dead, nor is it dieing, even if Novell has done something to hose it up a little. 5) If you spent $35K on the hardware you can probably afford to spend another few thousand on VMware ESX and run your multi-processor Windows VMs on there. -Nick>>> On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 11:10 AM, "Venefax" <venefax@gmail.com> wrote:According to Novell, Xen has a flaw that in fact means it is useless. I have a single supported system with SLES SP2, where I have 3 Windows VM''s and 5 Linux VM''s. In each of the Windows VM''s I have 8 Virtual CPU''s, because I have a vital SQL Server installed where my company runs all its business. The data comes precisely from the Linux virtual machines, and having the database "right there" has proven extremely efficient. But all my three Windows VM''s crashed simultaneously yesterday and I lost two hours of business. I am using of course the right Novell drivers, etc., every piece of the puzzle in place. Novell already checked that. The engineers showed me a technical note that says that having more than one Virtual CPU in a Windows VM leads to crashes. But then we cannot have any windows VM at all, hello!!! This means that the $35.000 box that I bought is the wrong box, because now I need to remove my windows VM and create a separate windows installation, and order more hardware, spend more money. It means that XEN is useless, because if it only can virtualize Linux, actually Virtuozzo (Open VZ) has a lot less overhead, far less. The beauty of Xen is that it is supposed to virtualize Windows and Linux together. Now, that dream is gone. In case somebody wants to look at my Novell case number, it is This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. If this email is not intended for you, or you are not responsible for the delivery of this message to the intended recipient, please note that this message may contain SEAKR Engineering (SEAKR) Privileged/Proprietary Information. In such a case, you are strictly prohibited from downloading, photocopying, distributing or otherwise using this message, its contents or attachments in any way. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this e-mail and delete the message from your mailbox. Information contained in this message that does not relate to the business of SEAKR is neither endorsed by nor attributable to SEAKR. _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
If you sunk $35K on Novell''s word about windows working in Xen, you would not be so "reasonable" about it. You would get kind of emotional. From: Nick Couchman [mailto:Nick.Couchman@seakr.com] Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 5:05 PM To: ''Mark Williamson''; ''Antoine Benkemoun''; Venefax; ''Ky Srinivasan''; ''Lynn Bendixsen'' Cc: stephen.spector@citrix.com; xen-users@lists.xensource.com Subject: Re: [Xen-users] The death of XEN by Novell This sounds to me like an emotional (over)reaction to a bug in Xen. I have also run across this flaw in Xen (Novell''s version of it, anyway - don''t know if all of the Xen versions are tainted) and have resigned myself to running my multi-processor Windows VMs on my VMware ESX servers instead of on XEN. Yes, it''s annoying, and yes I can see how you''d me a little ticked off after losing so much time to it, but, Xen still functions perfectly fine on SLES10 SP2 for me - I have four physical machines, all running SLES10 SP2 with somewhere on the order of 40 or so domUs on those four machines, and plenty of capacity to spare. Very useful, not dead. And, probably 25 of those 40 domUs are HVM domUs running Windows XP. One of them is Solaris, and the rest are various versions of Linux. So, to recap: 1) Yes, there''s a bug in there somewhere that makes running a multi-processor Windows-based HVM crash. 2) You can still run Windows on XEN - maybe just not in your environment. 3) XEN is still very, very useful - maybe just not for what you''re trying to do right now. 4) XEN is not dead, nor is it dieing, even if Novell has done something to hose it up a little. 5) If you spent $35K on the hardware you can probably afford to spend another few thousand on VMware ESX and run your multi-processor Windows VMs on there. -Nick>>> On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 11:10 AM, "Venefax" <venefax@gmail.com> wrote:According to Novell, Xen has a flaw that in fact means it is useless. I have a single supported system with SLES SP2, where I have 3 Windows VM''s and 5 Linux VM''s. In each of the Windows VM''s I have 8 Virtual CPU''s, because I have a vital SQL Server installed where my company runs all its business. The data comes precisely from the Linux virtual machines, and having the database "right there" has proven extremely efficient. But all my three Windows VM''s crashed simultaneously yesterday and I lost two hours of business. I am using of course the right Novell drivers, etc., every piece of the puzzle in place. Novell already checked that. The engineers showed me a technical note that says that having more than one Virtual CPU in a Windows VM leads to crashes. But then we cannot have any windows VM at all, hello!!! This means that the $35.000 box that I bought is the wrong box, because now I need to remove my windows VM and create a separate windows installation, and order more hardware, spend more money. It means that XEN is useless, because if it only can virtualize Linux, actually Virtuozzo (Open VZ) has a lot less overhead, far less. The beauty of Xen is that it is supposed to virtualize Windows and Linux together. Now, that dream is gone. In case somebody wants to look at my Novell case number, it is _____ This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. If this email is not intended for you, or you are not responsible for the delivery of this message to the intended recipient, please note that this message may contain SEAKR Engineering (SEAKR) Privileged/Proprietary Information. In such a case, you are strictly prohibited from downloading, photocopying, distributing or otherwise using this message, its contents or attachments in any way. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this e-mail and delete the message from your mailbox. Information contained in this message that does not relate to the business of SEAKR is neither endorsed by nor attributable to SEAKR. _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
You didn't sink $35K on Novell!! You sunk it on hardware - you can still use the hardware! If you're that ticked at Novell, call up your local VMware rep and tell them you want VI3/ESX 3. They'll be happy to switch you over to it. Or, go find one of the other Linux distros that includes XEN support and see if multi-processor Windows HVMs work any better in it. How about commercial XEN? I know the frustration of spending time and money on something and not getting what you paid for - my point is just that you haven't completely wasted that $35K - you can still use most of it. The Novell part accounts for about $800, if I remember correctly (when you purchase a Dell server with SLES10, SLES10 adds about $800 to the cost of the server for a 3 year agreement). $800 on that big a server isn't that much - find something else that works for you and go do that. I realize the frustration of the wasted time, too - I've been there before. Sorry - I wasn't trying to be condescending or anything like that - just trying to point out that you still have options, even if those options don't include SLES10. -Nick>>> On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 3:20 PM, "Venefax" <venefax@gmail.com>wrote: If you sunk $35K on Novell*s word about windows working in Xen, you would not be so *reasonable* about it. You would get kind of emotional. From: Nick Couchman [mailto:Nick.Couchman@seakr.com] Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 5:05 PM To: 'Mark Williamson'; 'Antoine Benkemoun'; Venefax; 'Ky Srinivasan'; 'Lynn Bendixsen' Cc: stephen.spector@citrix.com; xen-users@lists.xensource.com Subject: Re: [Xen-users] The death of XEN by Novell This sounds to me like an emotional (over)reaction to a bug in Xen. I have also run across this flaw in Xen (Novell's version of it, anyway - don't know if all of the Xen versions are tainted) and have resigned myself to running my multi-processor Windows VMs on my VMware ESX servers instead of on XEN. Yes, it's annoying, and yes I can see how you'd me a little ticked off after losing so much time to it, but, Xen still functions perfectly fine on SLES10 SP2 for me - I have four physical machines, all running SLES10 SP2 with somewhere on the order of 40 or so domUs on those four machines, and plenty of capacity to spare. Very useful, not dead. And, probably 25 of those 40 domUs are HVM domUs running Windows XP. One of them is Solaris, and the rest are various versions of Linux. So, to recap: 1) Yes, there's a bug in there somewhere that makes running a multi-processor Windows-based HVM crash. 2) You can still run Windows on XEN - maybe just not in your environment. 3) XEN is still very, very useful - maybe just not for what you're trying to do right now. 4) XEN is not dead, nor is it dieing, even if Novell has done something to hose it up a little. 5) If you spent $35K on the hardware you can probably afford to spend another few thousand on VMware ESX and run your multi-processor Windows VMs on there. -Nick>>> On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 11:10 AM, "Venefax" <venefax@gmail.com>wrote: According to Novell, Xen has a flaw that in fact means it is useless. I have a single supported system with SLES SP2, where I have 3 Windows VM's and 5 Linux VM's. In each of the Windows VM's I have 8 Virtual CPU's, because I have a vital SQL Server installed where my company runs all its business. The data comes precisely from the Linux virtual machines, and having the database "right there" has proven extremely efficient. But all my three Windows VM's crashed simultaneously yesterday and I lost two hours of business. I am using of course the right Novell drivers, etc., every piece of the puzzle in place. Novell already checked that. The engineers showed me a technical note that says that having more than one Virtual CPU in a Windows VM leads to crashes. But then we cannot have any windows VM at all, hello!!! This means that the $35.000 box that I bought is the wrong box, because now I need to remove my windows VM and create a separate windows installation, and order more hardware, spend more money. It means that XEN is useless, because if it only can virtualize Linux, actually Virtuozzo (Open VZ) has a lot less overhead, far less. The beauty of Xen is that it is supposed to virtualize Windows and Linux together. Now, that dream is gone. In case somebody wants to look at my Novell case number, it is This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. If this email is not intended for you, or you are not responsible for the delivery of this message to the intended recipient, please note that this message may contain SEAKR Engineering (SEAKR) Privileged/Proprietary Information. In such a case, you are strictly prohibited from downloading, photocopying, distributing or otherwise using this message, its contents or attachments in any way. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this e-mail and delete the message from your mailbox. Information contained in this message that does not relate to the business of SEAKR is neither endorsed by nor attributable to SEAKR. This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. If this email is not intended for you, or you are not responsible for the delivery of this message to the intended recipient, please note that this message may contain SEAKR Engineering (SEAKR) Privileged/Proprietary Information. In such a case, you are strictly prohibited from downloading, photocopying, distributing or otherwise using this message, its contents or attachments in any way. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this e-mail and delete the message from your mailbox. Information contained in this message that does not relate to the business of SEAKR is neither endorsed by nor attributable to SEAKR. _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Sat July 19 2008 5:04:46 pm Nick Couchman wrote:> This sounds to me like an emotional (over)reaction to a bug in Xen. I have > also run across this flaw in Xen (Novell''s version of it, anyway - don''t > know if all of the Xen versions are tainted) and have resigned myself to > running my multi-processor Windows VMs on my VMware ESX servers instead of > on XEN.[...]> 1) Yes, there''s a bug in there somewhere that makes running a > multi-processor Windows-based HVM crash.Just another data point: My Winxp vm works fine on Fedora 8 with vcpus=2. I mostly use it for multimedia - nothing as demanding as a database. _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:53:28 +0200, jim burns <jim_burn@bellsouth.net> wrote:> On Sat July 19 2008 5:04:46 pm Nick Couchman wrote: >> This sounds to me like an emotional (over)reaction to a bug in Xen. I >> have >> also run across this flaw in Xen (Novell''s version of it, anyway - don''t >> know if all of the Xen versions are tainted) and have resigned myself to >> running my multi-processor Windows VMs on my VMware ESX servers instead >> of >> on XEN. > [...] >> 1) Yes, there''s a bug in there somewhere that makes running a >> multi-processor Windows-based HVM crash. > > Just another data point: My Winxp vm works fine on Fedora 8 with > vcpus=2. I > mostly use it for multimedia - nothing as demanding as a database. >Same here. We''ve got a Windows 2000 VM running Apache, MySQL and MS SQL with vcpus ranging from 2 to 4 with no problems whatsoever, or at least not related with this SMP thing. We use XenSource''s hypervisor built from source with Ubuntu''s default Xen kernel on dom0. _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Fernando Jiménez Solano schreef:> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:53:28 +0200, jim burns <jim_burn@bellsouth.net> > wrote: > >> On Sat July 19 2008 5:04:46 pm Nick Couchman wrote: >>> This sounds to me like an emotional (over)reaction to a bug in Xen. >>> I have >>> also run across this flaw in Xen (Novell''s version of it, anyway - don''t >>> know if all of the Xen versions are tainted) and have resigned myself to >>> running my multi-processor Windows VMs on my VMware ESX servers >>> instead of >>> on XEN. >> [...] >>> 1) Yes, there''s a bug in there somewhere that makes running a >>> multi-processor Windows-based HVM crash. >> >> Just another data point: My Winxp vm works fine on Fedora 8 with >> vcpus=2. I >> mostly use it for multimedia - nothing as demanding as a database. >> > > Same here. We''ve got a Windows 2000 VM running Apache, MySQL and MS SQL > with > vcpus ranging from 2 to 4 with no problems whatsoever, or at least not > related with this SMP thing. > > We use XenSource''s hypervisor built from source with Ubuntu''s default Xen > kernel on dom0.Does Novell ship their own WindowsPV drivers or do they ship with experimental gplpv drivers? Stefan _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Sat July 19 2008 7:30:46 pm Stefan de Konink wrote:> Does Novell ship their own WindowsPV drivers or do they ship with > experimental gplpv drivers?Since Novell''s drivers predate James'' work, I would imagine they still ship their own with SP2, and definitely with SP1. I have no personal experience with them, tho'', since I use openSuSE (& Fedora). _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Novell has their own drivers and I use them. They do work fine, but the threat of my vital servers crashing all at the same time at 2 AM and me losing money until I restart them is too much to bare. The whole thing is useless. At least, not useful for critical mission. I am switching to Microsoft Virtualization. Does anybody have any experience with it? -----Original Message----- From: xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com [mailto:xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of jim burns Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 7:37 PM To: xen-users@lists.xensource.com Subject: Re: [Xen-users] The death of XEN by Novell On Sat July 19 2008 7:30:46 pm Stefan de Konink wrote:> Does Novell ship their own WindowsPV drivers or do they ship with > experimental gplpv drivers?Since Novell''s drivers predate James'' work, I would imagine they still ship their own with SP2, and definitely with SP1. I have no personal experience with them, tho'', since I use openSuSE (& Fedora). _______________________________________________ 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
I am already using one processor on dom0 and only 4 GB of ram, out of my 127. But Novell, when asked, said officially that it would not make much difference. I open a ticket and asked the question. The helped me but dismissed all claims that it works. Go figure. -----Original Message----- From: Stefan de Konink [mailto:skinkie@xs4all.nl] Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 10:01 PM To: Venefax Subject: Re: [Xen-users] The death of XEN by Novell Venefax schreef:> Please don''t call me a troll. I can prove, and ask Novell, that I > spent more money on XEN than 95% of the people on this list. I took > XEN seriously, until two days ago.I don''t think so that you are spending more money on it than our hosting company. We will go live by August, after one year of designing, testing, benchmarking and evaluating VMware and HyperV as two alternative platforms next to Xen for our customers. That you cannot get your pathetic Windows machines working, I think we can all blame Microsoft for their cooperation. Although I''m very happy that Xen exists I have seen it fail too with the GPL drivers, with SMP etc. You are trolling because you come to a list, start to cry, but don''t do anything that anyone suggest. Disable SMP... then you are set. And it might be uneasy to accept, but Windows will run faster on Xen without SMP. It gets even more interesting. Disabling SMP on Dom0 and hardlimiting its memory is the way to go. I can do some consulting for you if you want, but if you want to go HyperV/VMware, please have fun. HyperV will give probably paravirtualization on Windows, that might be as stable as 2008. And I hate to say it, but probably the only way to get remotely stable, because someone (the inventor) is backing you on it. Stefan _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Venefax schreef:> I am already using one processor on dom0 and only 4 GB of ram, out of > my 127.I think you don''t really get it yourself. My target would be to get the amount of memory on Dom0 as low as 32MB, that seems to be pretty impossible currently (python), but I am sure I''ll get there. But did you do what we told you? Set the amount of vcpus to 1 per Windows domain? Please report back if you did.> But Novell, when asked, said officially that it would not > make much difference.I''m happy you trust you Novell informants :) You might need to read some academic papers that were written about Xen. Might need to ditch Novell and take a different attitude to the developers of the software you are technically using for free. (And getting free support from!)> I open a ticket and asked the question. The > helped me but dismissed all claims that it works. Go figure.I have asked this individual now two times to not troll on a mailinglist. And reply off list, since this individual who doesn''t even want to give a name... but google enlightens us by the name of Philip Philip, you are making a complete fool out of yourself. It is good that Google keeps a track record. You seem to be a happy Asterisk user too :) Stefan _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
I cannot use 1 VCPU per windows domain. I have SQL Server running literally hundreds of transactions per second. I use Windows only to hold, to contain SQL Server, and since 100% of the transactions come from Linux domu''s, the speed and performance is fantastic, for there is no trip over the network. Each of my windows domains has 32 GB of RAM and 8 VCPU''s. Without SMP I am as good as dead. In fact, I am buying a dew Dell box on Monday only for SQL Server. -----Original Message----- From: xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com [mailto:xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Stefan de Konink Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 10:24 PM Cc: xen-users@lists.xensource.com Subject: Re: [Xen-users] The death of XEN by Novell Venefax schreef:> I am already using one processor on dom0 and only 4 GB of ram, out of > my 127.I think you don''t really get it yourself. My target would be to get the amount of memory on Dom0 as low as 32MB, that seems to be pretty impossible currently (python), but I am sure I''ll get there. But did you do what we told you? Set the amount of vcpus to 1 per Windows domain? Please report back if you did.> But Novell, when asked, said officially that it would not > make much difference.I''m happy you trust you Novell informants :) You might need to read some academic papers that were written about Xen. Might need to ditch Novell and take a different attitude to the developers of the software you are technically using for free. (And getting free support from!)> I open a ticket and asked the question. The > helped me but dismissed all claims that it works. Go figure.I have asked this individual now two times to not troll on a mailinglist. And reply off list, since this individual who doesn''t even want to give a name... but google enlightens us by the name of Philip Philip, you are making a complete fool out of yourself. It is good that Google keeps a track record. You seem to be a happy Asterisk user too :) Stefan _______________________________________________ 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
Venefax schreef:> I cannot use 1 VCPU per windows domain. I have SQL Server running > literally hundreds of transactions per second. I use Windows only to > hold, to contain SQL Server, and since 100% of the transactions come > from Linux domu''s, the speed and performance is fantastic, for there > is no trip over the network. Each of my windows domains has 32 GB of > RAM and 8 VCPU''s. Without SMP I am as good as dead. In fact, I am > buying a dew Dell box on Monday only for SQL Server.Who advised you to virtualize your most performance wise critical system? I mean... there are now two groups that want to do this and only to get high availability, or some big commercial bennefit. You didn''t talked about this at all. So we can conclude you design was stupid. Is stupid and by running your database on a dedicated server you could have reduced cost, increased stability and performance. I''m glad you finally saw the light! But thank you for trying 1 vcpu with your superb setup, it was great entertainment. Stefan _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
My design was not irrational, on the contrary, by having the database sharing the same physical box, the network trip was eliminated and my telephony service saw the latency reduced by an 80%. My Linux softswitches have often 300 open connections to SQL Server, because each open call needs routing information and the cdr must be written, all of these in real-time. I have two databases sharing the same box, one for CDR processing and another for routing. Those hundreds of connections do not happens across a physical medium, like the network, but across a XEN bridge, in RAM. The speed and performance is amazing. If it worked, of course. -----Original Message----- From: Stefan de Konink [mailto:skinkie@xs4all.nl] Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 10:37 PM To: Venefax Cc: xen-users@lists.xensource.com Subject: Re: [Xen-users] The death of XEN by Novell Venefax schreef:> I cannot use 1 VCPU per windows domain. I have SQL Server running > literally hundreds of transactions per second. I use Windows only to > hold, to contain SQL Server, and since 100% of the transactions come > from Linux domu''s, the speed and performance is fantastic, for there > is no trip over the network. Each of my windows domains has 32 GB of > RAM and 8 VCPU''s. Without SMP I am as good as dead. In fact, I am > buying a dew Dell box on Monday only for SQL Server.Who advised you to virtualize your most performance wise critical system? I mean... there are now two groups that want to do this and only to get high availability, or some big commercial bennefit. You didn''t talked about this at all. So we can conclude you design was stupid. Is stupid and by running your database on a dedicated server you could have reduced cost, increased stability and performance. I''m glad you finally saw the light! But thank you for trying 1 vcpu with your superb setup, it was great entertainment. Stefan _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users