Hi folks ... is there a possibilTy to conneCt doms toguether and for a spanning tree loop.... I have been looking at xen and have to say I am impressed at the networking cAPabilities but I do see concerns about cpu And stability using xen....can this product be considered enterprise ..? How much throughtput can xen handle between doms...? The network capabilities of xen can really cause concerns to the network admins... I mean this pRoduct not used well can bypass all seCurity in a network... pedro's blackberry _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
"Quezada, Pedro" <PedroQ@viacom.com> writes:> is there a possibilTy to conneCt doms toguether and for a spanning tree loop.Well, if you setup two bridges, sure. Or if you give a Domu 2 vifs and bridge them in the DomU. It''s not possible in the default setup, where you only have one bridge and one vif in each DomU But if you really want the "don''t let me shoot myself in the foot" level of handholding, you really shouldn''t be using Open Source. talk to Citrix about the commercial version of Xen, or if performance isn''t critical and/or you are largely a windows shop, talk to VMware.> The network capabilities of xen can really cause concerns to the network admins... > > I mean this product not used well can bypass all security in a network...You need to think of your xen bridge as a switch. From the network admin perspective, you are simply plugging in another switch and any number of servers behind that switch. The exact same security concerns apply. I don''t see how this bypasses all security on a network. It does mean that the Dom0 administrators are administering a switch; if you plug more than one network into the Dom0, you have the same problems you have when you plug more than one network into any other server (that is, someone with root on the server in question can create bridges/tunnels between those two tunnels if they want) _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
So is performance throughput an issue with Xen ? Hey I have been looking into it look at this diagram http://man.chinaunix.net/network/shorewall-docs-html-3.0.8/images/Xen4.p ng That is unbelievable what can be done with it....... True one can plug a server with multiple nics and have same effect.. But it ends at the nic and is already something we don''t like to do.. Good practice to monitor what we put out there externally.. Is just the fact that one can allow on server to go out the internet for business purposes.. Then many machines bridged and the routed out of the external interface and then natted... It mean that there is another network "infrastructure" behind the server and it can become elaborate... Thanks for your reply...I am playing with it see what implication it poses. Loops and a standard method of operating with a large spanning tree environment.. -----Original Message----- From: lsc@luke.xen.prgmr.com [mailto:lsc@luke.xen.prgmr.com] On Behalf Of Luke S Crawford Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 1:23 AM To: Quezada, Pedro Cc: xen-users@lists.xensource.com Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Networking with xen "Quezada, Pedro" <PedroQ@viacom.com> writes:> is there a possibilTy to conneCt doms toguether and for a spanningtree loop. Well, if you setup two bridges, sure. Or if you give a Domu 2 vifs and bridge them in the DomU. It''s not possible in the default setup, where you only have one bridge and one vif in each DomU But if you really want the "don''t let me shoot myself in the foot" level of handholding, you really shouldn''t be using Open Source. talk to Citrix about the commercial version of Xen, or if performance isn''t critical and/or you are largely a windows shop, talk to VMware.> The network capabilities of xen can really cause concerns to thenetwork admins...> > I mean this product not used well can bypass all security in anetwork... You need to think of your xen bridge as a switch. From the network admin perspective, you are simply plugging in another switch and any number of servers behind that switch. The exact same security concerns apply. I don''t see how this bypasses all security on a network. It does mean that the Dom0 administrators are administering a switch; if you plug more than one network into the Dom0, you have the same problems you have when you plug more than one network into any other server (that is, someone with root on the server in question can create bridges/tunnels between those two tunnels if they want) _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 6:57 AM, Quezada, Pedro <PedroQ@viacom.com> wrote:> > So is performance throughput an issue with Xen ? >Performance isn''t what you''d expect even with PV domUs. I think Iperf shows about 360Mbs between domUs. I''m not sure where the slowdown is but you''d think that we''d at least be getting gbE speeds. Grant McWilliams Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I''ll use Windows." Now they have two problems. _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
have you tried it from DOM to network outside of DOM ________________________________ From: Grant McWilliams [mailto:grantmasterflash@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 1:13 PM To: Quezada, Pedro Cc: Luke S Crawford; xen-users@lists.xensource.com Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Networking with xen On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 6:57 AM, Quezada, Pedro <PedroQ@viacom.com> wrote: So is performance throughput an issue with Xen ? Performance isn''t what you''d expect even with PV domUs. I think Iperf shows about 360Mbs between domUs. I''m not sure where the slowdown is but you''d think that we''d at least be getting gbE speeds. Grant McWilliams Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I''ll use Windows." Now they have two problems. _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Quezada, Pedro <PedroQ@viacom.com> wrote:> have you tried it from DOM to network outside of DOM > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Grant McWilliams [mailto:grantmasterflash@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 15, 2008 1:13 PM > *To:* Quezada, Pedro > *Cc:* Luke S Crawford; xen-users@lists.xensource.com > *Subject:* Re: [Xen-users] Networking with xen > > > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 6:57 AM, Quezada, Pedro <PedroQ@viacom.com> wrote: > >> >> So is performance throughput an issue with Xen ? >> > > Performance isn''t what you''d expect even with PV domUs. I think Iperf shows > about 360Mbs between domUs. I''m not sure where the slowdown is but you''d > think that we''d at least be getting gbE speeds. > > Grant McWilliams >Yes. I''ve followed all the threads about this and everyone comes up with about the same thing. Some people have said that if you have a dedicated eth card for each VM it''s much better. You can actually send data faster out of the box than to another VM. Maybe because the data has to go through the hypervisor to qemu to Linux across the bridge back to qemu, back to the hypervisor and back to the other vm. If the data is leaving the box it ony needs to go through this process once. I''m thinking that the new stubdomains will help but I''ve not been able to find any data to support this so far. Grant McWilliams _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
hey I found this http://www.vmware.com/pdf/hypervisor_performance.pdf ________________________________ From: Grant McWilliams [mailto:grantmasterflash@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 2:28 PM To: Quezada, Pedro Cc: Luke S Crawford; xen-users@lists.xensource.com Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Networking with xen On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Quezada, Pedro <PedroQ@viacom.com> wrote: have you tried it from DOM to network outside of DOM ________________________________ From: Grant McWilliams [mailto:grantmasterflash@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 1:13 PM To: Quezada, Pedro Cc: Luke S Crawford; xen-users@lists.xensource.com Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Networking with xen On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 6:57 AM, Quezada, Pedro <PedroQ@viacom.com> wrote: So is performance throughput an issue with Xen ? Performance isn''t what you''d expect even with PV domUs. I think Iperf shows about 360Mbs between domUs. I''m not sure where the slowdown is but you''d think that we''d at least be getting gbE speeds. Grant McWilliams Yes. I''ve followed all the threads about this and everyone comes up with about the same thing. Some people have said that if you have a dedicated eth card for each VM it''s much better. You can actually send data faster out of the box than to another VM. Maybe because the data has to go through the hypervisor to qemu to Linux across the bridge back to qemu, back to the hypervisor and back to the other vm. If the data is leaving the box it ony needs to go through this process once. I''m thinking that the new stubdomains will help but I''ve not been able to find any data to support this so far. Grant McWilliams _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Quezada, Pedro <PedroQ@viacom.com> wrote:> hey I found this > > http://www.vmware.com/pdf/hypervisor_performance.pdf >And since it''s from vmware it obviously not biased... Notice that they didn''t test Commercial Xen against the very expensive ESX but the open source one. VMware is the only one that can legally release performance figures of their product. Try to figure out why that is. I''m not knocking ESX because it''s probably Xen''s only competition but VMWare doesn''t want anyone else to release numbers because someone might actually test an area that Xen comes out on top. They show Xen as only having 3-6% of the speed of a native implementation on netperf when I''m seeing 10x that (and I''m still complaining). Also they only tested the Windows HVM drivers which are nothing more the QEMU emultated hardware. Again had they compared commercial software to commercial software things would have been different. It''s been known for quite a while that Xen has IO problems. I''m not sure how much of this has been fixed in 3.3 as apposed to 3.03. http://media.brianmadden.com/briforumplayer/bfplayerdynamic.asp?id=296&sparky=1 Grant McWilliams _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
I doubt that performance will improve ..until there is a NIC specifically made for virtual switches.. or a sub network piece of equipment that networking part handled in hardware everything is handled in software in these instances ...higher throughput will tax the server... ________________________________ From: Grant McWilliams [mailto:grantmasterflash@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 4:25 PM To: Quezada, Pedro Cc: Luke S Crawford; xen-users@lists.xensource.com Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Networking with xen On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Quezada, Pedro <PedroQ@viacom.com> wrote: hey I found this http://www.vmware.com/pdf/hypervisor_performance.pdf And since it''s from vmware it obviously not biased... Notice that they didn''t test Commercial Xen against the very expensive ESX but the open source one. VMware is the only one that can legally release performance figures of their product. Try to figure out why that is. I''m not knocking ESX because it''s probably Xen''s only competition but VMWare doesn''t want anyone else to release numbers because someone might actually test an area that Xen comes out on top. They show Xen as only having 3-6% of the speed of a native implementation on netperf when I''m seeing 10x that (and I''m still complaining). Also they only tested the Windows HVM drivers which are nothing more the QEMU emultated hardware. Again had they compared commercial software to commercial software things would have been different. It''s been known for quite a while that Xen has IO problems. I''m not sure how much of this has been fixed in 3.3 as apposed to 3.03. http://media.brianmadden.com/briforumplayer/bfplayerdynamic.asp?id=296&s parky=1 Grant McWilliams _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Quezada, Pedro <PedroQ@viacom.com> wrote:> > > I doubt that performance will improve ..until there is a NIC specifically > made for virtual switches.. > or a sub network piece of equipment that networking part handled in hardware > everything is handled in software in these instances ...higher throughput > will tax the server...virtio drivers are getting huge performance benefits on KVM and other QEMU/derived systems. it''s only a matter of time until Xen''s fork of QEMU is benefited too. -- Javier _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Quezada, Pedro <PedroQ@viacom.com> wrote:> > > I doubt that performance will improve ..until there is a NIC specifically > made for virtual switches.. > or a sub network piece of equipment that networking part handled in > hardware > everything is handled in software in these instances ...higher throughput > will tax the server... > > >I don''t really accept this. ESX tramples Xen on network performance. That tells me that we can do something now. People on the KVM list are reporting 600-900Mbs numbers. Grant McWilliams _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
you forget to mention it is a shared gig out to rest of network... I cant buy 900 megs from VM to VM.... there is alot of overhead ________________________________ From: Grant McWilliams [mailto:grantmasterflash@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 5:22 PM To: Quezada, Pedro Cc: Luke S Crawford; xen-users@lists.xensource.com Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Networking with xen On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Quezada, Pedro <PedroQ@viacom.com> wrote: I doubt that performance will improve ..until there is a NIC specifically made for virtual switches.. or a sub network piece of equipment that networking part handled in hardware everything is handled in software in these instances ...higher throughput will tax the server... I don''t really accept this. ESX tramples Xen on network performance. That tells me that we can do something now. People on the KVM list are reporting 600-900Mbs numbers. Grant McWilliams _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Quezada, Pedro <PedroQ@viacom.com> wrote:> you forget to mention it is a shared gig out to rest of network... > I cant buy 900 megs from VM to VM.... > > there is alot of overhead >Maybe it is but even then I''m only gaining about another 10% leaving the box on Xen. I''m still wondering if stub domains would help when going between VMs. When I get some time I''ll set up a test. It would be strange to see HVM beat PV at something. Grant McWilliams _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Grant McWilliams < grantmasterflash@gmail.com> wrote:> > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Quezada, Pedro <PedroQ@viacom.com> wrote: > >> you forget to mention it is a shared gig out to rest of network... >> I cant buy 900 megs from VM to VM.... >> >> there is alot of overhead >> > >I just ran the same tests on Vbox 1.6.6 and got 75Mbs with VT and using an internal network 84Mbs with VT off and using an internal network 97Mbs with VT off and using Linux host bridging 360Mbs with Xen 3.3 So this means networking could be worse but still I think that ESX is killing Xen and KVM is probably as well although I haven''t backed that up with numbers. Grant McWilliams _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
"Quezada, Pedro" <PedroQ@viacom.com> writes:> http://www.vmware.com/pdf/hypervisor_performance.pdfAs others have pointed out, this is likely vmware with optimized guest vmware drivers for network vs. xen in HVM mode without optimized network drivers. Full virtualization without optimized drivers is slow in general. See, in that case the host system is emulating a scsi card, or a network card for the guest. From what I''ve seen, vmware does have an edge in this area, however, it''s still so much slower than native that it is really only useful for testing. If you want reasonable performance, you really need optomized drivers in the guest. Personally, I only run paravirtualized guests in production; paravirtualized guests under xen have very little network or disk overhead. _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Diaz Corchero, Miguel Angel
2008-Oct-18 08:28 UTC
[Xen-users] Problem with bridge eth0. DomU access to Dom0 but doesn''t access to Internet
Hello.
I have a problem with my bridge.
My bridge eth0 is up, and if i do a ping from dom0 to domU it''s
successful. Too, if i do a ping from domU to dom0 it''s successful, but
i can''t do a ping from domU to another machine into Lan.
Thanks in advance.
Below I have written the output of comands and SOs installed in Doms
Dom0 is Centos5.2 x64 with Xen3.2
DomU is Centos5.2 x64
The brctl command returns this:
bridge name bridge id STP enabled interfaces
eth0 8000.0014221e75c7 no vif2.0
peth0
And ifconfig returns this:
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:14:22:1E:75:C7
inet addr:192.168.20.200 Bcast:192.168.20.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
inet6 addr: fe80::214:22ff:fe1e:75c7/64 Scope:Link
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:36794 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:3355 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
RX bytes:4916034 (4.6 MiB) TX bytes:414648 (404.9 KiB)
lo Link encap:Local Loopback
inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1
RX packets:219 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:219 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
RX bytes:22773 (22.2 KiB) TX bytes:22773 (22.2 KiB)
peth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:14:22:1E:75:C7
inet6 addr: fe80::214:22ff:fe1e:75c7/64 Scope:Link
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:157577 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:15352 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:100
RX bytes:16064251 (15.3 MiB) TX bytes:1983064 (1.8 MiB)
Base address:0xecc0 Memory:fe6e0000-fe700000
vif2.0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr FE:FF:FF:FF:FF:FF
inet6 addr: fe80::fcff:ffff:feff:ffff/64 Scope:Link
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:233 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:30458 errors:0 dropped:70 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:32
RX bytes:11218 (10.9 KiB) TX bytes:2067233 (1.9 MiB)
And route command give me info below where 192.168.20.1 is the router.
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
192.168.20.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
169.254.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
default 192.168.20.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
----------------------------
Confidencialidad:
Este mensaje y sus ficheros adjuntos se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario
y puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial. Si no es vd. el
destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la utilización, divulgación y/o
copia sin autorización está prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha
recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente
respondiendo al mensaje y proceda a su destrucción.
Disclaimer:
This message and its attached files is intended exclusively for its recipients
and may contain confidential information. If you received this e-mail in error
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copy or disclosure of this
communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. In this case, please
notify us by a reply and delete this email and its contents immediately.
----------------------------
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Diaz Corchero, Miguel Angel
2008-Oct-21 20:17 UTC
RV: [Xen-users] Problem with bridge eth0. DomU access to Dom0 but doesn''t access to Internet
Rob, thanks for your answer I was worried with my bridge. I have just had to disable spanning-tree and port-security on my cisco switch and now it''s working successfully. Regards Miguel. ------------------------------------------------ Miguel A. Díaz Corchero Unidad de Sistemas y Explotación CETA-CIEMAT, Trujillo, Spain miguelangel.diaz@ciemat.es ------------------------------------------------ -----Mensaje original----- De: Rob Aronson [mailto:riaronson@gmail.com] Enviado el: lun 20/10/2008 5:47 Para: Diaz Corchero, Miguel Angel Asunto: Re: [Xen-users] Problem with bridge eth0. DomU access to Dom0 but doesn''t access to Internet This is the third time I''ve heard about this type of failure. I have not seen it first hand. The cases I heard of mentioned that it would work for some time and then stop functioning without notice. I was trying to think of things that could cause that, I was going to recommend doing some traces and looking for problems with spanning tree. On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 1:28 AM, Diaz Corchero, Miguel Angel < miguelangel.diaz@ciemat.es> wrote:> Hello. > > I have a problem with my bridge. > My bridge eth0 is up, and if i do a ping from dom0 to domU it''s successful. > Too, if i do a ping from domU to dom0 it''s successful, but i can''t do a ping > from domU to another machine into Lan. > > Thanks in advance. > > > Below I have written the output of comands and SOs installed in Doms > > > Dom0 is Centos5.2 x64 with Xen3.2 > DomU is Centos5.2 x64 > The brctl command returns this: > bridge name bridge id STP enabled interfaces > eth0 8000.0014221e75c7 no vif2.0 > peth0 > And ifconfig returns this: > eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:14:22:1E:75:C7 > inet addr:192.168.20.200 Bcast:192.168.20.255 Mask: > 255.255.255.0 > inet6 addr: fe80::214:22ff:fe1e:75c7/64 Scope:Link > UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 > RX packets:36794 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 > TX packets:3355 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 > collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 > RX bytes:4916034 (4.6 MiB) TX bytes:414648 (404.9 KiB) > > lo Link encap:Local Loopback > inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0 > inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host > UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1 > RX packets:219 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 > TX packets:219 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 > collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 > RX bytes:22773 (22.2 KiB) TX bytes:22773 (22.2 KiB) > > peth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:14:22:1E:75:C7 > inet6 addr: fe80::214:22ff:fe1e:75c7/64 Scope:Link > UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 > RX packets:157577 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 > TX packets:15352 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 > collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 > RX bytes:16064251 (15.3 MiB) TX bytes:1983064 (1.8 MiB) > Base address:0xecc0 Memory:fe6e0000-fe700000 > > vif2.0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr FE:FF:FF:FF:FF:FF > inet6 addr: fe80::fcff:ffff:feff:ffff/64 Scope:Link > UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 > RX packets:233 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 > TX packets:30458 errors:0 dropped:70 overruns:0 carrier:0 > collisions:0 txqueuelen:32 > RX bytes:11218 (10.9 KiB) TX bytes:2067233 (1.9 MiB) > > > And route command give me info below where 192.168.20.1 is the router. > > Kernel IP routing table > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use > Iface > 192.168.20.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 > eth0 > 169.254.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 > eth0 > default 192.168.20.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 > eth0 > > > > > > ---------------------------- Confidencialidad: Este mensaje y sus > ficheros adjuntos se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede > contener información privilegiada o confidencial. Si no es vd. el > destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la utilización, divulgación > y/o copia sin autorización está prohibida en virtud de la legislación > vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo > comunique inmediatamente respondiendo al mensaje y proceda a su destrucción. > Disclaimer: This message and its attached files is intended exclusively for > its recipients and may contain confidential information. If you received > this e-mail in error you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copy or > disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. > In this case, please notify us by a reply and delete this email and its > contents immediately. ---------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-users mailing list > Xen-users@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users >-- Rob Aronson Storage, Virtualization and Orchestration Practice Manager, Novacoast USA _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users