When I first started using Xen I was on Ubuntu 8.04 with the version of Xen that shipped with it. Now here at work I have had to move to a Centos based Dom0 due to the dell OMSA requirement of an rpm based os. I have found good sources on how to install OMSA on just about any linux distribution so I am now in the market for a new setup. Centos is fine but I was wondering if there was something else out there that would be better for the dom0. All of my servers are Dell''s and have 2 or 4 nics which I have and can bond together and pass a trunk through. We now have an iSCSI SAN that I need thrown in the mix. Do I need to dedicate half the nics for the iSCSI or just pass the vlan to the domu''s? I am unclear on this part. Here is what we need for the distro/xen: Live/automatic domu failover Easy upgrade path between xen versions Preferably web-based dom0 administration (not totally needed but is nice for the others in my office) What is the best distribution to accomplish this with the greatest of ease/administration? Thanks in advance Donny B. _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
How about the live migration parts, are they well supported in Debian? This is the biggest part I want to get working...live/auto migration. On 1/12/2011 9:39 AM, Bruce Edge wrote:> Debian 6 (squeeze) beta 2 is good. Stable xen 4.01 available and no > fuss apt-get xen installation. > Caveat: I did just install this yesterday, but was pleased by the > progress so far. Much better Xen support than Ubuntu. I missed a few > Ubuntu apps, like kvpm, but the maverick versions compiled and ran > fine on debian 6 with no problems. > > -Bruce > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 7:20 AM, Donny Brooks > <dbrooks@mdah.state.ms.us <mailto:dbrooks@mdah.state.ms.us>> wrote: > > When I first started using Xen I was on Ubuntu 8.04 with the > version of Xen that shipped with it. Now here at work I have had > to move to a Centos based Dom0 due to the dell OMSA requirement of > an rpm based os. I have found good sources on how to install OMSA > on just about any linux distribution so I am now in the market for > a new setup. Centos is fine but I was wondering if there was > something else out there that would be better for the dom0. > > All of my servers are Dell''s and have 2 or 4 nics which I have and > can bond together and pass a trunk through. We now have an iSCSI > SAN that I need thrown in the mix. Do I need to dedicate half the > nics for the iSCSI or just pass the vlan to the domu''s? I am > unclear on this part. > > > Here is what we need for the distro/xen: > > Live/automatic domu failover > Easy upgrade path between xen versions > Preferably web-based dom0 administration (not totally needed but > is nice for the others in my office) > > What is the best distribution to accomplish this with the greatest > of ease/administration? > > Thanks in advance > > Donny B. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-users mailing list > Xen-users@lists.xensource.com <mailto: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 whould stay with Centos, or if you want/need a newer Xen try SuSE. Both got a pretty good Xen Integration Am 12.01.11 16:42, schrieb Donny Brooks:> How about the live migration parts, are they well supported in Debian? > This is the biggest part I want to get working...live/auto migration. > > On 1/12/2011 9:39 AM, Bruce Edge wrote: >> Debian 6 (squeeze) beta 2 is good. Stable xen 4.01 available and no >> fuss apt-get xen installation. >> Caveat: I did just install this yesterday, but was pleased by the >> progress so far. Much better Xen support than Ubuntu. I missed a few >> Ubuntu apps, like kvpm, but the maverick versions compiled and ran >> fine on debian 6 with no problems. >> >> -Bruce >> >> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 7:20 AM, Donny Brooks >> <dbrooks@mdah.state.ms.us <mailto:dbrooks@mdah.state.ms.us>> wrote: >> >> When I first started using Xen I was on Ubuntu 8.04 with the >> version of Xen that shipped with it. Now here at work I have had >> to move to a Centos based Dom0 due to the dell OMSA requirement of >> an rpm based os. I have found good sources on how to install OMSA >> on just about any linux distribution so I am now in the market for >> a new setup. Centos is fine but I was wondering if there was >> something else out there that would be better for the dom0. >> >> All of my servers are Dell''s and have 2 or 4 nics which I have and >> can bond together and pass a trunk through. We now have an iSCSI >> SAN that I need thrown in the mix. Do I need to dedicate half the >> nics for the iSCSI or just pass the vlan to the domu''s? I am >> unclear on this part. >> >> >> Here is what we need for the distro/xen: >> >> Live/automatic domu failover >> Easy upgrade path between xen versions >> Preferably web-based dom0 administration (not totally needed but >> is nice for the others in my office) >> >> What is the best distribution to accomplish this with the greatest >> of ease/administration? >> >> Thanks in advance >> >> Donny B. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Xen-users mailing list >> Xen-users@lists.xensource.com <mailto: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_______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
I am not worried about the xen version really. I have 4.0 on centos currently from the third party repo. I mainly need whatever supports the best live/auto migration. Basically if I have a server fail I need whatever was running on it to switch to the backup server "automagically". Food for thought: What would be the difference in the above support between Ubuntu/Debian and Fedora 14? On 1/12/2011 10:27 AM, Juergen Gotteswinter wrote:> I whould stay with Centos, or if you want/need a newer Xen try SuSE. > Both got a pretty good Xen Integration > > Am 12.01.11 16:42, schrieb Donny Brooks: >> How about the live migration parts, are they well supported in Debian? >> This is the biggest part I want to get working...live/auto migration. >> >> On 1/12/2011 9:39 AM, Bruce Edge wrote: >>> Debian 6 (squeeze) beta 2 is good. Stable xen 4.01 available and no >>> fuss apt-get xen installation. >>> Caveat: I did just install this yesterday, but was pleased by the >>> progress so far. Much better Xen support than Ubuntu. I missed a few >>> Ubuntu apps, like kvpm, but the maverick versions compiled and ran >>> fine on debian 6 with no problems. >>> >>> -Bruce >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 7:20 AM, Donny Brooks >>> <dbrooks@mdah.state.ms.us <mailto:dbrooks@mdah.state.ms.us>> wrote: >>> >>> When I first started using Xen I was on Ubuntu 8.04 with the >>> version of Xen that shipped with it. Now here at work I have had >>> to move to a Centos based Dom0 due to the dell OMSA requirement of >>> an rpm based os. I have found good sources on how to install OMSA >>> on just about any linux distribution so I am now in the market for >>> a new setup. Centos is fine but I was wondering if there was >>> something else out there that would be better for the dom0. >>> >>> All of my servers are Dell''s and have 2 or 4 nics which I have and >>> can bond together and pass a trunk through. We now have an iSCSI >>> SAN that I need thrown in the mix. Do I need to dedicate half the >>> nics for the iSCSI or just pass the vlan to the domu''s? I am >>> unclear on this part. >>> >>> >>> Here is what we need for the distro/xen: >>> >>> Live/automatic domu failover >>> Easy upgrade path between xen versions >>> Preferably web-based dom0 administration (not totally needed but >>> is nice for the others in my office) >>> >>> What is the best distribution to accomplish this with the greatest >>> of ease/administration? >>> >>> Thanks in advance >>> >>> Donny B. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Xen-users mailing list >>> Xen-users@lists.xensource.com <mailto: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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
On 01/12/2011 11:55 AM, Donny Brooks wrote:> I am not worried about the xen version really. I have 4.0 on centos > currently from the third party repo. I mainly need whatever supports the > best live/auto migration. Basically if I have a server fail I need > whatever was running on it to switch to the backup server "automagically". > > Food for thought: What would be the difference in the above support > between Ubuntu/Debian and Fedora 14?Automatic VM migration in a failure would best be achieved with a 2-node cluster. Fedora 14 would be best there, as I believe most of the developers of Pacemaker and RHCS use Fedora/RHEL. At the least, it''s pretty RPM-centric, then gets ported to .deb''s. That in and of itself is not always the best argument though. It was enough to make me switch from Debian/Ubuntu to RHEL (CentOS)/Fedora though. -- Digimer E-Mail: digimer@alteeve.com AN!Whitepapers: http://alteeve.com Node Assassin: http://nodeassassin.org _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On 1/12/2011 10:59 AM, Digimer wrote:> On 01/12/2011 11:55 AM, Donny Brooks wrote: >> I am not worried about the xen version really. I have 4.0 on centos >> currently from the third party repo. I mainly need whatever supports the >> best live/auto migration. Basically if I have a server fail I need >> whatever was running on it to switch to the backup server "automagically". >> >> Food for thought: What would be the difference in the above support >> between Ubuntu/Debian and Fedora 14? > Automatic VM migration in a failure would best be achieved with a 2-node > cluster. Fedora 14 would be best there, as I believe most of the > developers of Pacemaker and RHCS use Fedora/RHEL. At the least, it''s > pretty RPM-centric, then gets ported to .deb''s. > > That in and of itself is not always the best argument though. It was > enough to make me switch from Debian/Ubuntu to RHEL (CentOS)/Fedora though. >Thanks for the input. Currently we do not have any form of auto failover so that is a must moving forward. So is pacemaker the best way to provide auto failover with xen 4.0? _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On 1/12/2011 11:06 AM, Donny Brooks wrote:> On 1/12/2011 10:59 AM, Digimer wrote: >> On 01/12/2011 11:55 AM, Donny Brooks wrote: >>> I am not worried about the xen version really. I have 4.0 on centos >>> currently from the third party repo. I mainly need whatever supports >>> the >>> best live/auto migration. Basically if I have a server fail I need >>> whatever was running on it to switch to the backup server >>> "automagically". >>> >>> Food for thought: What would be the difference in the above support >>> between Ubuntu/Debian and Fedora 14? >> Automatic VM migration in a failure would best be achieved with a 2-node >> cluster. Fedora 14 would be best there, as I believe most of the >> developers of Pacemaker and RHCS use Fedora/RHEL. At the least, it''s >> pretty RPM-centric, then gets ported to .deb''s. >> >> That in and of itself is not always the best argument though. It was >> enough to make me switch from Debian/Ubuntu to RHEL (CentOS)/Fedora >> though. >> > Thanks for the input. Currently we do not have any form of auto > failover so that is a must moving forward. So is pacemaker the best > way to provide auto failover with xen 4.0? > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-users mailing list > Xen-users@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-usersAlso, where would XCP come into play with this? Is it something I should consider? _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On 01/12/2011 12:12 PM, Donny Brooks wrote:> On 1/12/2011 11:06 AM, Donny Brooks wrote: >> On 1/12/2011 10:59 AM, Digimer wrote: >>> On 01/12/2011 11:55 AM, Donny Brooks wrote: >>>> I am not worried about the xen version really. I have 4.0 on centos >>>> currently from the third party repo. I mainly need whatever supports >>>> the >>>> best live/auto migration. Basically if I have a server fail I need >>>> whatever was running on it to switch to the backup server >>>> "automagically". >>>> >>>> Food for thought: What would be the difference in the above support >>>> between Ubuntu/Debian and Fedora 14? >>> Automatic VM migration in a failure would best be achieved with a 2-node >>> cluster. Fedora 14 would be best there, as I believe most of the >>> developers of Pacemaker and RHCS use Fedora/RHEL. At the least, it''s >>> pretty RPM-centric, then gets ported to .deb''s. >>> >>> That in and of itself is not always the best argument though. It was >>> enough to make me switch from Debian/Ubuntu to RHEL (CentOS)/Fedora >>> though. >>> >> Thanks for the input. Currently we do not have any form of auto >> failover so that is a must moving forward. So is pacemaker the best >> way to provide auto failover with xen 4.0? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Xen-users mailing list >> Xen-users@lists.xensource.com >> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users > Also, where would XCP come into play with this? Is it something I should > consider?I don''t use XCP, so I can''t comment on that. As for clustering; Pacemaker will be the main clustered resource manager going forward (rgmanager from RHCS is now being migrated away). I''ve just started this move myself, but I do think that there are well tested Xen OCF scripts for managing Xen VMs. The setup you will want to look at is: - RHEL 6 (Fedora 14/CentOS 6) - Corosync + Pacemaker (cluster core + resource manager) - Fencing (aka Stonith) device (IPMI, PDU, etc) - DRBD if you don''t have/want a SAN - qdisk for proper quorum support -- Digimer E-Mail: digimer@alteeve.com AN!Whitepapers: http://alteeve.com Node Assassin: http://nodeassassin.org _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On 1/12/2011 11:35 AM, Digimer wrote:> On 01/12/2011 12:12 PM, Donny Brooks wrote: >> On 1/12/2011 11:06 AM, Donny Brooks wrote: >>> On 1/12/2011 10:59 AM, Digimer wrote: >>>> On 01/12/2011 11:55 AM, Donny Brooks wrote: >>>>> I am not worried about the xen version really. I have 4.0 on centos >>>>> currently from the third party repo. I mainly need whatever supports >>>>> the >>>>> best live/auto migration. Basically if I have a server fail I need >>>>> whatever was running on it to switch to the backup server >>>>> "automagically". >>>>> >>>>> Food for thought: What would be the difference in the above support >>>>> between Ubuntu/Debian and Fedora 14? >>>> Automatic VM migration in a failure would best be achieved with a 2-node >>>> cluster. Fedora 14 would be best there, as I believe most of the >>>> developers of Pacemaker and RHCS use Fedora/RHEL. At the least, it''s >>>> pretty RPM-centric, then gets ported to .deb''s. >>>> >>>> That in and of itself is not always the best argument though. It was >>>> enough to make me switch from Debian/Ubuntu to RHEL (CentOS)/Fedora >>>> though. >>>> >>> Thanks for the input. Currently we do not have any form of auto >>> failover so that is a must moving forward. So is pacemaker the best >>> way to provide auto failover with xen 4.0? >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Xen-users mailing list >>> Xen-users@lists.xensource.com >>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users >> Also, where would XCP come into play with this? Is it something I should >> consider? > I don''t use XCP, so I can''t comment on that. > > As for clustering; Pacemaker will be the main clustered resource manager > going forward (rgmanager from RHCS is now being migrated away). I''ve > just started this move myself, but I do think that there are well tested > Xen OCF scripts for managing Xen VMs. > > The setup you will want to look at is: > - RHEL 6 (Fedora 14/CentOS 6) > - Corosync + Pacemaker (cluster core + resource manager) > - Fencing (aka Stonith) device (IPMI, PDU, etc) > - DRBD if you don''t have/want a SAN > - qdisk for proper quorum support >Thanks for that. So far I am leaning toward Fedora 14. The Centos cycle is too long and usually has packages that are way out of the range I need (for instance OpenLDAP on my Centos 5.5 is way too old to enable the ppolicy stuff I need even though the release is not that old). I will look into the other software now. What about a web based administration or domu creation? Are there any that work well with Xen and both paravirt/full-virt domu''s? Donny B. _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On 01/12/2011 12:43 PM, Donny Brooks wrote:>> I don''t use XCP, so I can''t comment on that. >> >> As for clustering; Pacemaker will be the main clustered resource manager >> going forward (rgmanager from RHCS is now being migrated away). I''ve >> just started this move myself, but I do think that there are well tested >> Xen OCF scripts for managing Xen VMs. >> >> The setup you will want to look at is: >> - RHEL 6 (Fedora 14/CentOS 6) >> - Corosync + Pacemaker (cluster core + resource manager) >> - Fencing (aka Stonith) device (IPMI, PDU, etc) >> - DRBD if you don''t have/want a SAN >> - qdisk for proper quorum support >> > Thanks for that. So far I am leaning toward Fedora 14. The Centos cycle > is too long and usually has packages that are way out of the range I > need (for instance OpenLDAP on my Centos 5.5 is way too old to enable > the ppolicy stuff I need even though the release is not that old). I > will look into the other software now. > > What about a web based administration or domu creation? Are there any > that work well with Xen and both paravirt/full-virt domu''s? > > Donny B.Regading CentOS; RHEL 6.0 is out now, so I expect CentOS 6 to be out "real soon now". It''s quite a bit more up to date (~ Fedora 12 package versions) and *much* better tested. I''d suggest you use Fedora 14 to learn on, but hold off going live until CentOS 6 is out. I''ve pushed out a couple of Fedora based clusters and have come to regret it to a certain extent. The ''virt-manager'' tool is good for provisioning VMs. I know there was a bug in virt-manager with Xen VMs, but that was a while ago and I suspect it''s been resolved. I''ve been hand-crafting the configs for some time now, so I can''t confirm. As for the cluster configuration, ricci + luci provides a web-based config and is, I hear, much improved since RHEL 5 (again, I''ve stuck to hand crafting configs, so I can''t confirm). A final note on Xen + EL6. Red Hat dropped support for Xen because of it not being in the mainline kernel. This changed in 2.6.37, but EL6 is using 2.6.32, iirc. RH also disabled Xen support in the GUI tools like virt-manager. I do know that there is work underway to get Xen''ified dom0 kernels and rebuilt virt-manager et. al. packages into some third party repo (EPEL, I think). The long and the short of it is; Xen should be well supported in CentOS 6, but it won''t be there on day one. -- Digimer E-Mail: digimer@alteeve.com AN!Whitepapers: http://alteeve.com Node Assassin: http://nodeassassin.org _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
debian and xen are actually in different planets ...live migration is a pain and there are many problems in general. If you whant something stable, updated and so on, suse sles 11 sp1 is the way. Here are the main reasons: - it''s based on xen 4.0 + many interesting additions (for example virtual machines snapshots --> **not only disk snapshots**) - it''s integrated with the new cluster stack (pacemaker and friends) - it''s integrated with OCFS2 (with many interesting patches in the tree) - it''s integrated with CLVM (on pacemaker & friends) - it has pv over hvm drivers for linux and windows (in linux pv over hvm for 64bit VMs is better performing) - it has a fully working and certified infiniband stack - it''s more lightweight than redhat (it''s possible to make very light installations comparable in size/occupied resources to debian) - suse xen kernel is also the starting point of the citrix xenserver ...so it''s not something different / unmaintained etc>From a performance perspective I suggest you to directly use CLVM for VMimages storage because I''ve seen poor performances in QCOW2 over OCFS2 setups. The only big problem I can see in the future of suse is the acquisition by a microsoft controlled company of novell ...by the way also citrix is very microsoft dependant ...so the soup is almost the same. Best regards, Christian _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Christian Zoffoli <czoffoli@xmerlin.org>wrote:> debian and xen are actually in different planets ...live migration is a > pain and there are many problems in general. > > If you whant something stable, updated and so on, suse sles 11 sp1 is > the way. > > Here are the main reasons: > - it''s based on xen 4.0 + many interesting additions (for example > virtual machines snapshots --> **not only disk snapshots**) > - it''s integrated with the new cluster stack (pacemaker and friends) > - it''s integrated with OCFS2 (with many interesting patches in the tree) > - it''s integrated with CLVM (on pacemaker & friends) > - it has pv over hvm drivers for linux and windows (in linux pv over hvm > for 64bit VMs is better performing) > - it has a fully working and certified infiniband stack > - it''s more lightweight than redhat (it''s possible to make very light > installations comparable in size/occupied resources to debian) > - suse xen kernel is also the starting point of the citrix xenserver > ...so it''s not something different / unmaintained etc > > >From a performance perspective I suggest you to directly use CLVM for VM > images storage because I''ve seen poor performances in QCOW2 over OCFS2 > setups. > > The only big problem I can see in the future of suse is the acquisition > by a microsoft controlled company of novell ...by the way also citrix is > very microsoft dependant ...so the soup is almost the same. > > > Best regards, > Christian >Hard to argue with that level of functionality & integration. I''ll have to look at sles 11 too. -Bruce> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
Il 12/01/2011 19:32, Bruce Edge ha scritto: [cut]> Hard to argue with that level of functionality & integration. I''ll have > to look at sles 11 too.just a little note to make your life simpler ...when I''ve activated the trial account I had some problem accessing the HAE packages updates (HAE in sles 11 sp1 is pacemaker* OCFS2 CLVM ecc) ...so double check that your trial account work as expected. Best regards, Christian _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On 1/12/2011 12:00 PM, Christian Zoffoli wrote:> debian and xen are actually in different planets ...live migration is a > pain and there are many problems in general. > > If you whant something stable, updated and so on, suse sles 11 sp1 is > the way. > > Here are the main reasons: > - it''s based on xen 4.0 + many interesting additions (for example > virtual machines snapshots --> **not only disk snapshots**) > - it''s integrated with the new cluster stack (pacemaker and friends) > - it''s integrated with OCFS2 (with many interesting patches in the tree) > - it''s integrated with CLVM (on pacemaker& friends) > - it has pv over hvm drivers for linux and windows (in linux pv over hvm > for 64bit VMs is better performing) > - it has a fully working and certified infiniband stack > - it''s more lightweight than redhat (it''s possible to make very light > installations comparable in size/occupied resources to debian) > - suse xen kernel is also the starting point of the citrix xenserver > ...so it''s not something different / unmaintained etc > > From a performance perspective I suggest you to directly use CLVM for VM > images storage because I''ve seen poor performances in QCOW2 over OCFS2 > setups. > > The only big problem I can see in the future of suse is the acquisition > by a microsoft controlled company of novell ...by the way also citrix is > very microsoft dependant ...so the soup is almost the same. > > > Best regards, > Christian > > > > > >I was looking into Suse SLES 11 and it is a no go for us. Being a small state agency with no usable budget for IT we cannot afford the $349 subscription for one year. Unless I am missing something there and they have a totally free version. So it looks like Fedora 14 (or centos 6) is it. _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Il 13/01/2011 16:45, Donny Brooks ha scritto: [cut]> I was looking into Suse SLES 11 and it is a no go for us. Being a small > state agency with no usable budget for IT we cannot afford the $349 > subscription for one year. Unless I am missing something there and they > have a totally free version. > > So it looks like Fedora 14 (or centos 6) is it.you can use opensuse ...that''s very close to sles Best regards, Christian _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
I would double that from two fronts - (1) SLES is in active development with clusterlabs providing the SLES HA as a product that has been tested! (2) The testing process does come in contact with the OpenSUSE project in which lessons learned and as well as enhancements that may make it into this project providing a huge advantage for OpenSUSE users. Just my 2 cents worth. Shaffin. On 01/13/2011 10:56 AM, Christian Zoffoli wrote:> Il 13/01/2011 16:45, Donny Brooks ha scritto: > [cut] >> I was looking into Suse SLES 11 and it is a no go for us. Being a small >> state agency with no usable budget for IT we cannot afford the $349 >> subscription for one year. Unless I am missing something there and they >> have a totally free version. >> >> So it looks like Fedora 14 (or centos 6) is it. > > you can use opensuse ...that''s very close to sles > > Best regards, > Christian > > _______________________________________________ > 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
Il 13/01/2011 17:03, Shaffin Bhanji ha scritto:> I would double that from two fronts - > > (1) SLES is in active development with clusterlabs providing the SLES HA > as a product that has been tested!of course ... "very close" is not "equal" but if he cannot pay for a SLES he can use something very close. On opensuse factory you can find almost all the packages / patches you have on SLES. To make a good dom0 you basically need: 1- xen: kernel + userspace 2- multipath 3- cluster stack (pacemaker & co) 4- clvm nothing else http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/Kernel:/SLE11-SP1/SUSE_SLE-11_SP1/src/ http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/network:/ha-clustering/SLE_11_SP1/src/ http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/Virtualization/SLE_11/src/ the package you can find above are a bit more updated than SLES packages (~ next packages ...testing packages). IMHO opensuse is better than fedora for xen purposes and centos6 is not released (5.x with the old cluster stack is meaningless) Best regards, Christian _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> -----Original Message----- > From: xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com [mailto:xen-users- > bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Christian Zoffoli > > Il 13/01/2011 16:45, Donny Brooks ha scritto: > [cut] > > I was looking into Suse SLES 11 and it is a no go for us. Being a > > small state agency with no usable budget for IT we cannot afford the > > $349 subscription for one year. Unless I am missing something there > > and they have a totally free version. > > > > So it looks like Fedora 14 (or centos 6) is it. > > you can use opensuse ...that''s very close to slesMore to the point: OpenSuSE appears to be the community flavor of SLES, just as Fedora is the community variant of RHEL. If I were to reject SLES due to cost in favor of Fedora, presumably I''d reject RHEL for the same reasons, and it would be silly to ignore OpenSuSE. -Jeff _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Thursday, January 13, 2011 11:41 AM CST, Jeff Sturm wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com [mailto:xen-users- > bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Christian Zoffoli > > Il 13/01/2011 16:45, Donny Brooks ha scritto: > [cut] > > I was looking into Suse SLES 11 and it is a no go for us. Being a > > small state agency with no usable budget for IT we cannot afford the > > $349 subscription for one year. Unless I am missing something there > > and they have a totally free version. > > > > So it looks like Fedora 14 (or centos 6) is it. > > you can use opensuse ...that's very close to sles More to the point: OpenSuSE appears to be the community flavor of SLES, just as Fedora is the community variant of RHEL. If I were to reject SLES due to cost in favor of Fedora, presumably I'd reject RHEL for the same reasons, and it would be silly to ignore OpenSuSE. -Jeff _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users We don't have any money for ANY OS so, yes I would have to dismiss RHEL for Fedora. And I do that already. All of our machines here run either Centos, Fedora, or Ubuntu. We do have a windows 2008R2 server that we were able to purchase with grant money for a project but it limited us to only windows. I will look into the OpenSuse project and see if it will do what we want. I have not used any Suse distro in about 13 years so it may take some re-learning! -- Donny B. MDAH _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Donny Brooks <dbrooks@mdah.state.ms.us> wrote:> On Thursday, January 13, 2011 11:41 AM CST, Jeff Sturm > <jeff.sturm@eprize.com> wrote:you can use centos and install a 2.6.32 dom0 on it and xen 4.0 look at fedora xen mailing list. ------------ Itamar Reis Peixoto msn, google talk: itamar@ispbrasil.com.br +55 11 4063 5033 (FIXO SP) +55 34 9158 9329 (TIM) +55 34 8806 3989 (OI) +55 34 3221 8599 (FIXO MG) _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> just as Fedora is the community variant of RHEL.I don''t think so. Scientific Linux 6 - yes (alpha 3 seems to be stable) CentOS 6 - yes ( when will be out ) KVM behaviour on SL 6 is different from F14 . In particular, W7 KVM install is amazingly fast , even without pre-loading viostor.sys. KVM performance for Linux Guests ( + virtio support ) is extremely high with CPU''s like C2D 8500, Q9550 . Gaming ( home use) hardware. Boris. --- On Thu, 1/13/11, Jeff Sturm <jeff.sturm@eprize.com> wrote: From: Jeff Sturm <jeff.sturm@eprize.com> Subject: RE: [Xen-users] Which distro to use for Dom0 To: "Christian Zoffoli" <czoffoli@xmerlin.org>, xen-users@lists.xensource.com Cc: "Donny Brooks" <dbrooks@mdah.state.ms.us> Date: Thursday, January 13, 2011, 12:41 PM> -----Original Message----- > From: xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com [mailto:xen-users- > bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Christian Zoffoli > > Il 13/01/2011 16:45, Donny Brooks ha scritto: > [cut] > > I was looking into Suse SLES 11 and it is a no go for us. Being a > > small state agency with no usable budget for IT we cannot afford the > > $349 subscription for one year. Unless I am missing something there > > and they have a totally free version. > > > > So it looks like Fedora 14 (or centos 6) is it. > > you can use opensuse ...that''s very close to slesMore to the point: OpenSuSE appears to be the community flavor of SLES, just as Fedora is the community variant of RHEL. If I were to reject SLES due to cost in favor of Fedora, presumably I''d reject RHEL for the same reasons, and it would be silly to ignore OpenSuSE. -Jeff _______________________________________________ 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
On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 12:41 -0500, Jeff Sturm wrote:> > More to the point: OpenSuSE appears to be the community flavor of SLES, > just as Fedora is the community variant of RHEL.Actually that''s not true, CentOS is much closer to the mark as a community variant of RHEL. Fedora is a much different system. Fedora also has to be upgraded at least once a year to avoid going out of support, whereas RHEL/CentOS will be supported for at least five years from date of release. For that reason alone, I don''t recommend running Fedora on production servers unless you have a specific reason (i.e. there is some software or version you need that is supported on Fedora but not CentOS).> > If I were to reject SLES due to cost in favor of Fedora, presumably I''d > reject RHEL for the same reasons, and it would be silly to ignore > OpenSuSE.I personally think the OP should go with whichever distro supports Xen that he is most familiar with. Xen is a complicated system. Run it on a distro that you are familiar with. The same applies in spades to using Pacemaker. If you know SUSE, then use SUSE. If you know Red Hat, then use CentOS. Clearly there are people here who have had success with both. But if you are trying to learn a new distro at the same time as Xen and Pacemaker, that''s not a good combination for getting a stable system. --Greg _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On 1/13/2011 1:02 PM, Donny Brooks wrote:> We don''t have any money for ANY OS so, yes I would have to dismiss RHEL for > Fedora. And I do that already. All of our machines here run either Centos, > Fedora, or Ubuntu. We do have a windows 2008R2 server that we were able to > purchase with grant money for a project but it limited us to only windows. > > I will look into the OpenSuse project and see if it will do what we want. I > have not used any Suse distro in about 13 years so it may take some re-learning!I experimented with a few distros and settled on openSUSE last year. Compared to others, there was a lot less I had to do to get Xen running with everything else I wanted -- the two big ones being LUKS and LVM. Other distros had all three but I seemed to constantly be chasing compatibility issues where I needed to upgrade one of the pieces and that upgrade was a pain to get integrated into the Xen kernel I had. openSUSE has just worked so far. I haven''t had to build any of my own custom kernels ... just upgraded as openSUSE makes changes available. The only issue I''ve hit, which I think is a general Xen issue, is I use NVIDIA drivers. I have to rebuild those for each kernel upgrade to get them to work with the Xen kernel. Not a big deal once I figured it out. -- Steve Sapovits steves06@comcast.net _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
I prefer SLES or opensuse, works fine. But I hope xen will be supported by RH and CentOS _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 07:00:59PM +0100, Christian Zoffoli wrote:> debian and xen are actually in different planets ...live migration is a > pain and there are many problems in general.I miss your bugreports. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=xen;include=originator:czoffoli%40xmerlin.org shows none.> If you whant something stable, updated and so on, suse sles 11 sp1 is > the way.If you want heavily patched software that can''t be supported by anyone else, yes, then you want SLES.> - it has a fully working and certified infiniband stackAnd Linux does not?> - suse xen kernel is also the starting point of the citrix xenserverAnd is not supported outside of SuSE in any way. Bastian -- Our way is peace. -- Septimus, the Son Worshiper, "Bread and Circuses", stardate 4040.7. _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Il 14/01/2011 20:39, Bastian Blank ha scritto:> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 07:00:59PM +0100, Christian Zoffoli wrote: >> debian and xen are actually in different planets ...live migration is a >> pain and there are many problems in general. > > I miss your bugreports. > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=xen;include=originator:czoffoli%40xmerlin.org > shows none.what? example: step1: install 2 lenny dom0 step2: install 1 lenny domU step3: configure xen, shared storage and whatever you need step4: start domU on whatever dom0 step5: live migrate the domU from dom0-1 to dom0-2 step6: puff -> domU is unusable>> If you whant something stable, updated and so on, suse sles 11 sp1 is >> the way. > > If you want heavily patched software that can''t be supported by anyone > else, yes, then you want SLES.so you have not to use xen ...because the official xen dom0 kernel is very old, pv-ops dom0 is not ready for production (it will be but now it''s not). actually: ** xen on centos/rhel works but: - kernel is old - clustering stack is old and not as good as the newer pacemaker stack - kernel is very patched in every area ...as anyone know ** xen on opensuse/SLES works and: - it has a newer kernel less patched in many areas (as you know newer kernels means new hw support ...so less patches to support newer hw) - new clustering stack better than the previous one and better integrated with external components like drbd ecc - many new features ...as suse actually uses xen 4.1>> - it has a fully working and certified infiniband stack > > And Linux does not?no, the key word is certified: http://www.mellanox.com/content/pages.php?pg=products_dyn&product_family=26&menu_section=34#tab-three the only distros with a certified and suppoted stack are redhat and suse>> - suse xen kernel is also the starting point of the citrix xenserver > > And is not supported outside of SuSE in any way.who support the xen kernel integrated in debian? ...noone ...so there is no difference. I love debian but lenny simply sucks in the xen area. In the future, it will be beutiful to have a working xen + clustering stack + whatever you need to make a virtualization cluster ...but now the reality is very different and everyone that use xen inside clusters already know this bad reality. Best regards, Christian _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Christian Zoffoli wrote:> > debian and xen are actually in different planets ...live migration is a > pain and there are many problems in general. > > If you whant something stable, updated and so on, suse sles 11 sp1 is > the way. > > Here are the main reasons: > - it''s based on xen 4.0 + many interesting additions (for example > virtual machines snapshots --> **not only disk snapshots**) > - it''s integrated with the new cluster stack (pacemaker and friends) > - it''s integrated with OCFS2 (with many interesting patches in the tree) > - it''s integrated with CLVM (on pacemaker & friends) > - it has pv over hvm drivers for linux and windows (in linux pv over hvm > for 64bit VMs is better performing) > - it has a fully working and certified infiniband stack > - it''s more lightweight than redhat (it''s possible to make very light > installations comparable in size/occupied resources to debian) > - suse xen kernel is also the starting point of the citrix xenserver > ...so it''s not something different / unmaintained etc > >>From a performance perspective I suggest you to directly use CLVM for VM > images storage because I''ve seen poor performances in QCOW2 over OCFS2 > setups. > > The only big problem I can see in the future of suse is the acquisition > by a microsoft controlled company of novell ...by the way also citrix is > very microsoft dependant ...so the soup is almost the same. > > > Best regards, > Christian > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-users mailing list > Xen-users@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users > >Christian, I am particularly interested in the new snapshotting features you mention. I could not find anything in the SLES11SP1 Xen documentation about it though. Is this about the following out of the Xen 4.0 docs?: 114 Snapshots: 115 116 Pausing a guest will also plug the corresponding IO queue for blktap2 117 devices and stop blktap2 drivers. This can be used to implement a 118 safe live snapshot of qcow and vhd disks. An example script "xmsnap" 119 is shown in the tools/blktap2/drivers directory. This script will 120 perform a live snapshot of a qcow disk. VHD files can use the 121 "vhd-util snapshot" tool discussed above. If this snapshot command is 122 applied to a raw file mounted with tap:tapdisk:AIO, include the -m 123 flag and the driver will be reloaded as VHD. If applied to an already 124 mounted VHD file, omit the -m flag. 125 thx, B. -- View this message in context: http://xen.1045712.n5.nabble.com/Which-distro-to-use-for-Dom0-tp3338309p3353111.html Sent from the Xen - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Regarding SLES as a Dom0, how well are those features when used with Centos domUs? My objectives would be; 1) Better VM management in terms of snapshots as now I use snapshots via logvols and rsync of the OSs (rsync within the DomU) as well as the DomU images (rsync within the Dom0). I had a bad image once which pretty much credited me with a few awww shits. All I did was reboot it bayam! But thats another story. 2) Pass through features like VGA and USB. Seems like to really take advantage of this I must have a DomU capable of this either by 2.6.18hg kernel or the pv2.6.32 kernel? It never seemed like RHEL/Centos had good VM management tools and now that I am contemplating KVM, it probably even has less due to it maturity level. Any thoughts are greatly appreciated. - Brian> > > Christian Zoffoli wrote: >> >> debian and xen are actually in different planets ...live migration is a >> pain and there are many problems in general. >> >> If you whant something stable, updated and so on, suse sles 11 sp1 is >> the way. >> >> Here are the main reasons: >> - it''s based on xen 4.0 + many interesting additions (for example >> virtual machines snapshots --> **not only disk snapshots**) >> - it''s integrated with the new cluster stack (pacemaker and friends) >> - it''s integrated with OCFS2 (with many interesting patches in the tree) >> - it''s integrated with CLVM (on pacemaker & friends) >> - it has pv over hvm drivers for linux and windows (in linux pv over hvm >> for 64bit VMs is better performing) >> - it has a fully working and certified infiniband stack >> - it''s more lightweight than redhat (it''s possible to make very light >> installations comparable in size/occupied resources to debian) >> - suse xen kernel is also the starting point of the citrix xenserver >> ...so it''s not something different / unmaintained etc >> >>>From a performance perspective I suggest you to directly use CLVM for VM >> images storage because I''ve seen poor performances in QCOW2 over OCFS2 >> setups. >> >> The only big problem I can see in the future of suse is the acquisition >> by a microsoft controlled company of novell ...by the way also citrix is >> very microsoft dependant ...so the soup is almost the same. >> >> >> Best regards, >> Christian >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Xen-users mailing list >> Xen-users@lists.xensource.com >> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users >> >> > > Christian, > > I am particularly interested in the new snapshotting features you mention. > I > could not find anything in the SLES11SP1 Xen documentation about it > though. > Is this about the following out of the Xen 4.0 docs?: > > 114 Snapshots: > 115 > 116 Pausing a guest will also plug the corresponding IO queue for > blktap2 > 117 devices and stop blktap2 drivers. This can be used to implement a > 118 safe live snapshot of qcow and vhd disks. An example script > "xmsnap" > 119 is shown in the tools/blktap2/drivers directory. This script will > 120 perform a live snapshot of a qcow disk. VHD files can use the > 121 "vhd-util snapshot" tool discussed above. If this snapshot > command > is > 122 applied to a raw file mounted with tap:tapdisk:AIO, include the -m > 123 flag and the driver will be reloaded as VHD. If applied to an > already > 124 mounted VHD file, omit the -m flag. > 125 > > > thx, > > B. > > -- > View this message in context: > http://xen.1045712.n5.nabble.com/Which-distro-to-use-for-Dom0-tp3338309p3353111.html > Sent from the Xen - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
in sles you have the following: ~ # xm --help | grep snap snapshot-create Snapshot a running domain. snapshot-list List available snapshots for a domain. snapshot-apply Apply previous snapshot to domain. snapshot-delete Delete snapshot of domain. and to use such feature with your domU you have to start the vm in this way: xm new dom1 xm start dom1 and then you can make xm snapshot-create dom1 dom1-snap I''ve not tried other image formats like vhd only qcow2 just a litte note qcow2 on OCFS2 is not very fast Best regards, Christian Il 22/01/2011 20:18, Bart Coninckx ha scritto:> > > Christian Zoffoli wrote: >> >> debian and xen are actually in different planets ...live migration is a >> pain and there are many problems in general. >> >> If you whant something stable, updated and so on, suse sles 11 sp1 is >> the way. >> >> Here are the main reasons: >> - it''s based on xen 4.0 + many interesting additions (for example >> virtual machines snapshots --> **not only disk snapshots**) >> - it''s integrated with the new cluster stack (pacemaker and friends) >> - it''s integrated with OCFS2 (with many interesting patches in the tree) >> - it''s integrated with CLVM (on pacemaker & friends) >> - it has pv over hvm drivers for linux and windows (in linux pv over hvm >> for 64bit VMs is better performing) >> - it has a fully working and certified infiniband stack >> - it''s more lightweight than redhat (it''s possible to make very light >> installations comparable in size/occupied resources to debian) >> - suse xen kernel is also the starting point of the citrix xenserver >> ...so it''s not something different / unmaintained etc >> >> >From a performance perspective I suggest you to directly use CLVM for VM >> images storage because I''ve seen poor performances in QCOW2 over OCFS2 >> setups. >> >> The only big problem I can see in the future of suse is the acquisition >> by a microsoft controlled company of novell ...by the way also citrix is >> very microsoft dependant ...so the soup is almost the same. >> >> >> Best regards, >> Christian >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Xen-users mailing list >> Xen-users@lists.xensource.com >> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users >> >> > > Christian, > > I am particularly interested in the new snapshotting features you mention. I > could not find anything in the SLES11SP1 Xen documentation about it though. > Is this about the following out of the Xen 4.0 docs?: > > 114 Snapshots: > 115 > 116 Pausing a guest will also plug the corresponding IO queue for > blktap2 > 117 devices and stop blktap2 drivers. This can be used to implement a > 118 safe live snapshot of qcow and vhd disks. An example script > "xmsnap" > 119 is shown in the tools/blktap2/drivers directory. This script will > 120 perform a live snapshot of a qcow disk. VHD files can use the > 121 "vhd-util snapshot" tool discussed above. If this snapshot command > is > 122 applied to a raw file mounted with tap:tapdisk:AIO, include the -m > 123 flag and the driver will be reloaded as VHD. If applied to an > already > 124 mounted VHD file, omit the -m flag. > 125 > > > thx, > > B. >-- Christian Zoffoli (XMerlin) You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." -- R. Buckminster Fuller _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users