Hi All, Existing setup: CentOS 5.x, RHEL kernel, gitco Xen 3.3 RPMs. I am looking at migrating to Xen 4.1, by means of migrating from old hardware to brand new hardware and moving to Xen 4.1 at the same time. 3 options available to me: Option 1: Go CentOS 5.x, RHEL kernel, gitco Xen 4.1 RPMs. Quite similar to my existing setup with Xen 3.3. Are there any notable downsides for using the RHEL kernel against Xen 4.1? Option 2: Go CentOS 5.x, pvops kernel (2.6.32 one), gitco Xen 4.1 RPMs. The use of the pvops kernel would be new - how would this compare in terms of performance, stability and security fixes against the RHEL kernel? Option 3: Go CentOS 6.x, pvops kernel (2.6.32 one), Xen 4.1 RPMs from somewhere?/build from source. In this particular case, the use of the pvops kernel means that I don''t benefit from backported Redhat driver updates / other fixes. Are there RHEL kernels with pvops patched in available anywhere? How easy is it to patch in pvops to future RHEL kernel updates so that I don''t need to wait for whoever to update their repo? As for RHEL 6/CentOS 6.x Xen 4.1 RPMs - is there a preferred source, like how gitco was for CentOS 5.x? Or should I just build from source? Thanks in advance for any advice anyone can give. Regards, Alan _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Alan Lam <alan@madrooster.com> wrote:> In this particular case, the use of the pvops kernel means that I don''t > benefit from backported Redhat driver updates / other fixes. Are there RHEL > kernels with pvops patched in available anywhere? How easy is it to patch in > pvops to future RHEL kernel updates so that I don''t need to wait for whoever > to update their repo?Short version: if you decide to use xen on top of RHEL, make SURE you either: - use the bundled version on RHEL5.x. Really. It''s suitable for most purposes and saves you lots of problems. OR - experienced in creating and modifying packages using SRPMS Personally my latest test system is using xen rpm from http://xenbits.xen.org/people/mayoung/EL6.xen/x86_64/, plus vanilla kernel 3.1 packaged using F16''s kernel SRPM as base. Oh and throw in zfsonlinux to the mix, since I need the features on this system and don''t mind the I/O slowdown that comes with it. Works fine so far. Again, if you have no experience in maintaining RPMs yourself, better stay away from this path. Use RH 5''s bundled xen and kernel instead. A useful link (should still be relevant): http://new-wiki.xen.org/wiki/RHEL6Xen4Tutorial -- Fajar
Hi Fajar, Creating/modifying packages isn''t a problem. That''s fine. I''m mostly after opinions on what route I should go. I haven''t really been keeping up to date with Xen 4.x hence the questions. The reason I am looking at Xen 4.1 is because I need to be able to boot grub2 distros which is basically everything recent. So basically Xen 4.x is a must. Xen 4.1 gitco and RHEL kernel should work fine, but that''s getting old (kernel) and I''d like to stay current. Seeing as Xen 4.x uses pvops kernel as default I''d like to stick to this path if it doesn''t have any major downsides. The major hurdle here is whether to go with CentOS 6.x and the xen pvops kernel (with downsides) or find / build my own RHEL 6.x kernel patched with dom0 support. The other issue is the hardware is going to be the current Intel Sandy Bridge platform so there may not be any driver support in the xen pvops kernel?? Worst case being CentOS 5.x with RHEL kernel. Thoughts? Out of my 3 options, which would you go with and why? Regards, Alan -----Original Message----- From: Fajar A. Nugraha [mailto:list@fajar.net] Sent: Monday, 21 November 2011 7:29 PM To: Alan Lam Cc: xen-users Subject: Re: [Xen-users] CentOS 5.x / 6.x Dom0 On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Alan Lam <alan@madrooster.com> wrote:> In this particular case, the use of the pvops kernel means that Idon''t> benefit from backported Redhat driver updates / other fixes. Are thereRHEL> kernels with pvops patched in available anywhere? How easy is it topatch in> pvops to future RHEL kernel updates so that I don''t need to wait forwhoever> to update their repo?Short version: if you decide to use xen on top of RHEL, make SURE you either: - use the bundled version on RHEL5.x. Really. It''s suitable for most purposes and saves you lots of problems. OR - experienced in creating and modifying packages using SRPMS Personally my latest test system is using xen rpm from http://xenbits.xen.org/people/mayoung/EL6.xen/x86_64/, plus vanilla kernel 3.1 packaged using F16''s kernel SRPM as base. Oh and throw in zfsonlinux to the mix, since I need the features on this system and don''t mind the I/O slowdown that comes with it. Works fine so far. Again, if you have no experience in maintaining RPMs yourself, better stay away from this path. Use RH 5''s bundled xen and kernel instead. A useful link (should still be relevant): http://new-wiki.xen.org/wiki/RHEL6Xen4Tutorial -- Fajar _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Alan Lam <alan@madrooster.com> wrote:> The reason I am looking at Xen 4.1 is because I need to be able to boot grub2 distros which is basically everything recent. So basically Xen 4.x is a must.If that''s your ONLY requirement, the easiesy way is to just use RHEL5 (including its kernel) + gitco (replacing only xen rpms). Make sure you test it first though. Last time I check the kernel needs "nomsi" command line option to be able to boot correctly. -- Fajar
Hi Fajar, OK - so that''s one option that should in theory work. On the topic of CentOS 6.x though, what would be your recommended path to take, if I wanted to pursue the CentOS 6.x path? I see there''s various Xen 4.1 RPMs for CentOS 6 so I can tick that off, but what would you recommend for the kernel portion? Regards, Alan -----Original Message----- From: Fajar A. Nugraha [mailto:list@fajar.net] Sent: Monday, 21 November 2011 8:07 PM To: Alan Lam Cc: xen-users Subject: Re: [Xen-users] CentOS 5.x / 6.x Dom0 On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Alan Lam <alan@madrooster.com> wrote:> The reason I am looking at Xen 4.1 is because I need to be able toboot grub2 distros which is basically everything recent. So basically Xen 4.x is a must. If that''s your ONLY requirement, the easiesy way is to just use RHEL5 (including its kernel) + gitco (replacing only xen rpms). Make sure you test it first though. Last time I check the kernel needs "nomsi" command line option to be able to boot correctly. -- Fajar _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Alan Lam <alan@madrooster.com> wrote:> On the topic of CentOS 6.x though, what would be your recommended path to > take, if I wanted to pursue the CentOS 6.x path? I see there''s various Xen > 4.1 RPMs for CentOS 6 so I can tick that off, but what would you recommend > for the kernel portion?That''s the tricky part. While RHEL5 have dom0-compatible -xen kernel, RHEL6 only has domU-compatible kernel. My personal preference is what I mentioned above: use latest vanilla kernel, packaged as RPM. At least that way when a new vulnerability comes out you just need to recompile the latest kernel plus whatever Linus-blessed emergency-patch available. The downside, you won''t have blktap support (which shouldn''t matter if you use LV-backed domUs). Others might opt for the more-tested 2.6.32 xen-pv_ops though. At least Oracle VM also uses kernel 2.6.32. -- Fajar
Hi Fajar, I am using LV backed domUs in PV currently. I would like to maybe explore HVM in future though so I''d like that option to remain open. Other than that, I''m not using VT-d or anything along those lines, so nothing majorly fancy. So if I grab the F16 kernel, recompile the RPM under CentOS 6.x, this should be OK for dom0 use? Were there any catches, ie. other utils eg. udev and the likes that needed to be updated before you could boot the F16 kernel? Regards, Alan -----Original Message----- From: Fajar A. Nugraha [mailto:list@fajar.net] Sent: Monday, 21 November 2011 8:18 PM To: Alan Lam Cc: xen-users Subject: Re: [Xen-users] CentOS 5.x / 6.x Dom0 On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Alan Lam <alan@madrooster.com> wrote:> On the topic of CentOS 6.x though, what would be your recommended pathto> take, if I wanted to pursue the CentOS 6.x path? I see there''s variousXen> 4.1 RPMs for CentOS 6 so I can tick that off, but what would yourecommend> for the kernel portion?That''s the tricky part. While RHEL5 have dom0-compatible -xen kernel, RHEL6 only has domU-compatible kernel. My personal preference is what I mentioned above: use latest vanilla kernel, packaged as RPM. At least that way when a new vulnerability comes out you just need to recompile the latest kernel plus whatever Linus-blessed emergency-patch available. The downside, you won''t have blktap support (which shouldn''t matter if you use LV-backed domUs). Others might opt for the more-tested 2.6.32 xen-pv_ops though. At least Oracle VM also uses kernel 2.6.32. -- Fajar _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Alan Lam <alan@madrooster.com> wrote:> I am using LV backed domUs in PV currently. I would like to maybe explore > HVM in future though so I''d like that option to remain open.only LV-vs-file matters. PV-vs-HVM shouldn''t matter w.r.t. bkltap.> So if I grab the F16 kernel, recompile the RPM under CentOS 6.x, this should > be OK for dom0 use?I needed to edit the SPEC a bit since some required packages is not available, or only older version is available, on RHEL6 # diff -Naru kernel.fc16.spec kernel.spec --- kernel.fc16.spec 2011-10-26 23:27:50.000000000 -0400 +++ kernel.spec 2011-11-02 04:57:48.279838912 -0400 @@ -455,7 +455,8 @@ # First the general kernel 2.6 required versions as per # Documentation/Changes # -%define kernel_dot_org_conflicts ppp < 2.4.3-3, isdn4k-utils < 3.2-32, nfs-utils < 1.0.7-12, e2fsprogs < 1.37-4, util-linux < 2.12, jfsutils < 1.1.7-2, reiserfs-utils < 3.6.19-2, xfsprogs < 2.6.13-4, procps < 3.2.5-6.3, oprofile < 0.9.1-2, device-mapper-libs < 1.02.63-2, mdadm < 3.2.1-5 +#%define kernel_dot_org_conflicts ppp < 2.4.3-3, isdn4k-utils < 3.2-32, nfs-utils < 1.0.7-12, e2fsprogs < 1.37-4, util-linux < 2.12, jfsutils < 1.1.7-2, reiserfs-utils < 3.6.19-2, xfsprogs < 2.6.13-4, procps < 3.2.5-6.3, oprofile < 0.9.1-2, device-mapper-libs < 1.02.63-2, mdadm < 3.2.1-5 +%define kernel_dot_org_conflicts ppp < 2.4.3-3, isdn4k-utils < 3.2-32, nfs-utils < 1.0.7-12, e2fsprogs < 1.37-4, util-linux < 2.12, jfsutils < 1.1.7-2, reiserfs-utils < 3.6.19-2, xfsprogs < 2.6.13-4, procps < 3.2.5-6.3, oprofile < 0.9.1-2, mdadm < 3.2.1-5 # # Then a series of requirements that are distribution specific, either @@ -473,7 +474,8 @@ # Packages that need to be installed before the kernel is, because the %%post # scripts use them. # -%define kernel_prereq fileutils, module-init-tools >= 3.16-2, initscripts >= 8.11.1-1, grubby >= 8.3-1 +#%define kernel_prereq fileutils, module-init-tools >= 3.16-2, initscripts >= 8.11.1-1, grubby >= 8.3-1 +%define kernel_prereq fileutils, module-init-tools, initscripts >8.11.1-1, grubby %define initrd_prereq dracut >= 001-7 ... and then build it with rpmbuild -ba --without tools kernel.spec> > > > Were there any catches, ie. other utils eg. udev and the likes that needed > to be updated before you could boot the F16 kernel?You need to edit grub.conf manually. Other than that, it should work. -- Fajar
Hi Fajar, OK, brilliant! This should give me a decent path for CentOS 6.x then if I pursue that route. Thanks once again Fajar. Regards, Alan -----Original Message----- From: Fajar A. Nugraha [mailto:list@fajar.net] Sent: Monday, 21 November 2011 8:31 PM To: Alan Lam Cc: xen-users Subject: Re: [Xen-users] CentOS 5.x / 6.x Dom0 On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Alan Lam <alan@madrooster.com> wrote:> I am using LV backed domUs in PV currently. I would like to maybeexplore> HVM in future though so I''d like that option to remain open.only LV-vs-file matters. PV-vs-HVM shouldn''t matter w.r.t. bkltap.> So if I grab the F16 kernel, recompile the RPM under CentOS 6.x, thisshould> be OK for dom0 use?I needed to edit the SPEC a bit since some required packages is not available, or only older version is available, on RHEL6 # diff -Naru kernel.fc16.spec kernel.spec --- kernel.fc16.spec 2011-10-26 23:27:50.000000000 -0400 +++ kernel.spec 2011-11-02 04:57:48.279838912 -0400 @@ -455,7 +455,8 @@ # First the general kernel 2.6 required versions as per # Documentation/Changes # -%define kernel_dot_org_conflicts ppp < 2.4.3-3, isdn4k-utils < 3.2-32, nfs-utils < 1.0.7-12, e2fsprogs < 1.37-4, util-linux < 2.12, jfsutils < 1.1.7-2, reiserfs-utils < 3.6.19-2, xfsprogs < 2.6.13-4, procps < 3.2.5-6.3, oprofile < 0.9.1-2, device-mapper-libs < 1.02.63-2, mdadm < 3.2.1-5 +#%define kernel_dot_org_conflicts ppp < 2.4.3-3, isdn4k-utils < 3.2-32, nfs-utils < 1.0.7-12, e2fsprogs < 1.37-4, util-linux < 2.12, jfsutils < 1.1.7-2, reiserfs-utils < 3.6.19-2, xfsprogs < 2.6.13-4, procps < 3.2.5-6.3, oprofile < 0.9.1-2, device-mapper-libs < 1.02.63-2, mdadm < 3.2.1-5 +%define kernel_dot_org_conflicts ppp < 2.4.3-3, isdn4k-utils < 3.2-32, nfs-utils < 1.0.7-12, e2fsprogs < 1.37-4, util-linux < 2.12, jfsutils < 1.1.7-2, reiserfs-utils < 3.6.19-2, xfsprogs < 2.6.13-4, procps < 3.2.5-6.3, oprofile < 0.9.1-2, mdadm < 3.2.1-5 # # Then a series of requirements that are distribution specific, either @@ -473,7 +474,8 @@ # Packages that need to be installed before the kernel is, because the %%post # scripts use them. # -%define kernel_prereq fileutils, module-init-tools >= 3.16-2, initscripts >= 8.11.1-1, grubby >= 8.3-1 +#%define kernel_prereq fileutils, module-init-tools >= 3.16-2, initscripts >= 8.11.1-1, grubby >= 8.3-1 +%define kernel_prereq fileutils, module-init-tools, initscripts > 8.11.1-1, grubby %define initrd_prereq dracut >= 001-7 ... and then build it with rpmbuild -ba --without tools kernel.spec>>>> Were there any catches, ie. other utils eg. udev and the likes thatneeded> to be updated before you could boot the F16 kernel?You need to edit grub.conf manually. Other than that, it should work. -- Fajar _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Hi, Excuse me for sounding ignorant, however, is there any reason why NOT to use Fedora 16 for this dom0? Best regards, Randy Katz On 11/21/2011 2:01 AM, Alan Lam wrote:> > Hi Fajar, > > OK, brilliant! This should give me a decent path for CentOS 6.x then > if I pursue that route. > > Thanks once again Fajar. > > Regards, > > Alan > > -----Original Message----- > From: Fajar A. Nugraha [mailto:list@fajar.net] > Sent: Monday, 21 November 2011 8:31 PM > To: Alan Lam > Cc: xen-users > Subject: Re: [Xen-users] CentOS 5.x / 6.x Dom0 > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Alan Lam <alan@madrooster.com> wrote: > > > I am using LV backed domUs in PV currently. I would like to maybe > explore > > > HVM in future though so I''d like that option to remain open. > > only LV-vs-file matters. PV-vs-HVM shouldn''t matter w.r.t. bkltap. > > > So if I grab the F16 kernel, recompile the RPM under CentOS 6.x, > this should > > > be OK for dom0 use? > > I needed to edit the SPEC a bit since some required packages is not > > available, or only older version is available, on RHEL6 > > # diff -Naru kernel.fc16.spec kernel.spec > > --- kernel.fc16.spec 2011-10-26 23:27:50.000000000 -0400 > > +++ kernel.spec 2011-11-02 04:57:48.279838912 -0400 > > @@ -455,7 +455,8 @@ > > # First the general kernel 2.6 required versions as per > > # Documentation/Changes > > # > > -%define kernel_dot_org_conflicts ppp < 2.4.3-3, isdn4k-utils < > > 3.2-32, nfs-utils < 1.0.7-12, e2fsprogs < 1.37-4, util-linux < 2.12, > > jfsutils < 1.1.7-2, reiserfs-utils < 3.6.19-2, xfsprogs < 2.6.13-4, > > procps < 3.2.5-6.3, oprofile < 0.9.1-2, device-mapper-libs < > > 1.02.63-2, mdadm < 3.2.1-5 > > +#%define kernel_dot_org_conflicts ppp < 2.4.3-3, isdn4k-utils < > > 3.2-32, nfs-utils < 1.0.7-12, e2fsprogs < 1.37-4, util-linux < 2.12, > > jfsutils < 1.1.7-2, reiserfs-utils < 3.6.19-2, xfsprogs < 2.6.13-4, > > procps < 3.2.5-6.3, oprofile < 0.9.1-2, device-mapper-libs < > > 1.02.63-2, mdadm < 3.2.1-5 > > +%define kernel_dot_org_conflicts ppp < 2.4.3-3, isdn4k-utils < > > 3.2-32, nfs-utils < 1.0.7-12, e2fsprogs < 1.37-4, util-linux < 2.12, > > jfsutils < 1.1.7-2, reiserfs-utils < 3.6.19-2, xfsprogs < 2.6.13-4, > > procps < 3.2.5-6.3, oprofile < 0.9.1-2, mdadm < 3.2.1-5 > > # > > # Then a series of requirements that are distribution specific, either > > @@ -473,7 +474,8 @@ > > # Packages that need to be installed before the kernel is, because the > %%post > > # scripts use them. > > # > > -%define kernel_prereq fileutils, module-init-tools >= 3.16-2, > > initscripts >= 8.11.1-1, grubby >= 8.3-1 > > +#%define kernel_prereq fileutils, module-init-tools >= 3.16-2, > > initscripts >= 8.11.1-1, grubby >= 8.3-1 > > +%define kernel_prereq fileutils, module-init-tools, initscripts >> > 8.11.1-1, grubby > > %define initrd_prereq dracut >= 001-7 > > ... and then build it with > > rpmbuild -ba --without tools kernel.spec > > > > > > > > > > > > Were there any catches, ie. other utils eg. udev and the likes that > needed > > > to be updated before you could boot the F16 kernel? > > You need to edit grub.conf manually. Other than that, it should work. > > -- > > Fajar > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Randy Katz <rkatz@simplicityhosting.com> wrote:> Hi, > > Excuse me for sounding ignorant, however, is there any reason why NOT to use > Fedora 16 for this dom0?If you want to use it for production then you need to know Fedora EOL timeline for each release. You are not going to upgrade Fedora so often isn''t it?> > Best regards, > Randy Katz > > On 11/21/2011 2:01 AM, Alan Lam wrote: > > Hi Fajar, > > > > OK, brilliant! This should give me a decent path for CentOS 6.x then if I > pursue that route. > > > > Thanks once again Fajar. > > > > Regards, > > Alan > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Fajar A. Nugraha [mailto:list@fajar.net] > Sent: Monday, 21 November 2011 8:31 PM > To: Alan Lam > Cc: xen-users > Subject: Re: [Xen-users] CentOS 5.x / 6.x Dom0 > > > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Alan Lam <alan@madrooster.com> wrote: > >> I am using LV backed domUs in PV currently. I would like to maybe explore > >> HVM in future though so I''d like that option to remain open. > > > > only LV-vs-file matters. PV-vs-HVM shouldn''t matter w.r.t. bkltap. > > > >> So if I grab the F16 kernel, recompile the RPM under CentOS 6.x, this >> should > >> be OK for dom0 use? > > > > I needed to edit the SPEC a bit since some required packages is not > > available, or only older version is available, on RHEL6 > > > > # diff -Naru kernel.fc16.spec kernel.spec > > --- kernel.fc16.spec 2011-10-26 23:27:50.000000000 -0400 > > +++ kernel.spec 2011-11-02 04:57:48.279838912 -0400 > > @@ -455,7 +455,8 @@ > > # First the general kernel 2.6 required versions as per > > # Documentation/Changes > > # > > -%define kernel_dot_org_conflicts ppp < 2.4.3-3, isdn4k-utils < > > 3.2-32, nfs-utils < 1.0.7-12, e2fsprogs < 1.37-4, util-linux < 2.12, > > jfsutils < 1.1.7-2, reiserfs-utils < 3.6.19-2, xfsprogs < 2.6.13-4, > > procps < 3.2.5-6.3, oprofile < 0.9.1-2, device-mapper-libs < > > 1.02.63-2, mdadm < 3.2.1-5 > > +#%define kernel_dot_org_conflicts ppp < 2.4.3-3, isdn4k-utils < > > 3.2-32, nfs-utils < 1.0.7-12, e2fsprogs < 1.37-4, util-linux < 2.12, > > jfsutils < 1.1.7-2, reiserfs-utils < 3.6.19-2, xfsprogs < 2.6.13-4, > > procps < 3.2.5-6.3, oprofile < 0.9.1-2, device-mapper-libs < > > 1.02.63-2, mdadm < 3.2.1-5 > > +%define kernel_dot_org_conflicts ppp < 2.4.3-3, isdn4k-utils < > > 3.2-32, nfs-utils < 1.0.7-12, e2fsprogs < 1.37-4, util-linux < 2.12, > > jfsutils < 1.1.7-2, reiserfs-utils < 3.6.19-2, xfsprogs < 2.6.13-4, > > procps < 3.2.5-6.3, oprofile < 0.9.1-2, mdadm < 3.2.1-5 > > > > # > > # Then a series of requirements that are distribution specific, either > > @@ -473,7 +474,8 @@ > > # Packages that need to be installed before the kernel is, because the > %%post > > # scripts use them. > > # > > -%define kernel_prereq fileutils, module-init-tools >= 3.16-2, > > initscripts >= 8.11.1-1, grubby >= 8.3-1 > > +#%define kernel_prereq fileutils, module-init-tools >= 3.16-2, > > initscripts >= 8.11.1-1, grubby >= 8.3-1 > > +%define kernel_prereq fileutils, module-init-tools, initscripts >> > 8.11.1-1, grubby > > %define initrd_prereq dracut >= 001-7 > > > > ... and then build it with > > > > rpmbuild -ba --without tools kernel.spec > > > >> > >> > >> > >> Were there any catches, ie. other utils eg. udev and the likes that needed > >> to be updated before you could boot the F16 kernel? > > > > You need to edit grub.conf manually. Other than that, it should work. > > > > -- > > Fajar > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:48 AM, Randy Katz <rkatz@simplicityhosting.com>wrote:> Hi, > > Excuse me for sounding ignorant, however, is there any reason why NOT to > use Fedora 16 for this dom0? > > Best regards, > Randy Katz > >Because it''s Fedora. Fedora is meant to be a sandbox to work out bugs, not a production server. Grant McWilliams http://grantmcwilliams.com/ 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