XenServer supports grub2 since 5.6 fp1 version.
Anthony > -----Original Message----- > From: Chiradeep Vittal [mailto:chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 3:00 PM > To: CloudStack DeveloperList > Subject: Re: CentOS System Offering Thread > > Yes, it is for performance reasons. > CentOS > -has a different place for network init scripts > -has a different initialization scheme (chkconfig vs LSB init) > -has a different place to initialize iptables > > Centos also may use GRUB-legacy vs GRUB2 for booting. > The current systemvm uses GRUB-legacy since XS 5.6 only supported > GRUB-legacy, but it might be time to move on. > > A more suitable systemvm build script might be based on veewee/vagrant, > along with qemu-img to do the final conversion to vhd/qcow2 > > -- > Chiradeep > > On 12/13/12 10:29 AM, "Anthony Xu" <xuefei...@citrix.com> wrote: > > >32-bit PV might have better performance than 64-bit PV on XEN, > >In 64 bit mode, there are only ring 0 and ring 3, both Guest OS and > guest > >application are running on ring3 , application system call needs to be > >trapped into hypervisor and then be injected into guest OS. > >In 32 bit mode, there are ring 0, 1, 2, 3. Guest OS is running on > ring > >1, application is running on ring 3, hypervisor doesn't need to trap > >system call. > > > >That might be one of reasons dom0 is 32 bit in XenServer/XCP. > > > >Anthony > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Donal Lafferty [mailto:donal.laffe...@citrix.com] > >> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:20 AM > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > >> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread > >> > >> The choice of 32-bit OS may be to support legacy servers, but I > really > >> don't know. > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusa...@webmd.net] > >> Sent: 13 December 2012 4:50 PM > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > >> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread > >> > >> I did.. reviewed buildsystemvm.sh script - seems self-explanatory. > >> > >> There are 2 major parts to this task as I see it. > >> > >> Part1 > >> System Image Side: > >> We need to alter the "debootsrap" to "mock" and change debian > specific > >> configs to redhat. Once functional - I need to create 3 versions of > >> the template for VmWare, Xen and KVM. I have VmWare in house - no > >> Xen/KVM yet - we can deal with this - once I get there. > >> > >> Part2 > >> Systemvm.iso will need to be updated and include rhel version of the > >> patch scripts we run on power on. > >> > >> > >> What is the reason for running 32bit OS vs 64? Are we open to > changing > >> that to 64bit - which would probably benefit very large > implementations > >> using basic zones. Or should we keep it 32 bit for consistency > reason? > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Donal Lafferty [mailto:donal.laffe...@citrix.com] > >> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 7:47 AM > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > >> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread > >> > >> WRT to CentOS. Did you survey the changes required? > >> > >> Would be great to have these on a wiki page for future reference and > >> history tracking. > >> > >> > >> DL > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusa...@webmd.net] > >> Sent: 12 December 2012 9:33 PM > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > >> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread > >> > >> Donal > >> > >> See response in line.. > >> > >> >> 1. Can you remind me of the download link for the Wheezy > systemVM? > >> I've only seen Squeeze. > >> > >> I confused the names - I think - its squeeze - wheezy is the latest > >> offering with 3.x kernel. I guess by now you noticed I'm not debian > >> user :) > >> > >> >> 2. In addition to a Debian system VM, I'd like to see one and > only > >> one CentOS VM in addition to Debian. I get the impression that > CentOS > >> has a different and desirable licensing regime, but do correct me if > >> I'm wrong. > >> > >> I'm under impression CentOS has very liberal licensing structure. I > >> don't believe we should have an issue here - but I'm by no means a > >> licensing expert. > >> > >> I think it's reasonable to have 1 other offering only.. > >> > >> Thanks > >> ilya > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Donal Lafferty [mailto:donal.laffe...@citrix.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 3:34 PM > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > >> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread > >> > >> 1. Can you remind me of the download link for the Wheezy systemVM? > >> I've only seen Squeeze. > >> > >> 2. In addition to a Debian system VM, I'd like to see one and only > one > >> CentOS VM in addition to Debian. I get the impression that CentOS > has > >> a different and desirable licensing regime, but do correct me if I'm > >> wrong. > >> > >> DL > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusa...@webmd.net] > >> Sent: 12 December 2012 8:06 PM > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > >> Subject: RE: CentOS System Offering Thread > >> > >> Joe > >> > >> Your point is clear and well taken. Nobody wants to be in business > of > >> maintaining myriad of distros out there for something that should > not > >> be changed anyway. > >> > >> I see two solutions then: > >> > >> 1) update the existing debian wheezy image to reflect latest fixes - > >> which is probably something that should do anyway. > >> > >> 2) maybe have a section of - "user submitted and unsupported" > system > >> offerings? We can clearly state - we support 1 type of offering and > >> other offerings are optional and unsupported - but your own > >> responsibility and should be used by advanced users only. > >> > >> Thoughts? > >> > >> Regards > >> -ilya > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Joe Brockmeier [mailto:j...@zonker.net] > >> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:02 AM > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > >> Subject: Re: CentOS System Offering Thread > >> > >> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012, at 11:32 PM, Marcus Sorensen wrote: > >> > This is pretty important. Anyone should be able to roll their own, > >> > rather than relying on a single potentially out-of-date image. It > >> > seems like it would be pretty simple and straightforward on the > face > >> > of it, however many of the scripts have been written specifically > for > >> > Debian. I'd honestly be ok with having to stick to a particular > >> distro > >> > if I at least had clear instructions on how to make my own, I > >> > understand the need to program against a single defined userspace. > >> > >> I see a potential problem with this. > >> > >> Any scenario where users are customizing part of the stack means > >> additional variables which means additional problems. If we target > >> Debian, trying to create a system VM from CentOS/RHEL means > different > >> libraries, etc. - which means a number of potential problems > cropping > >> up where there were none before. > >> > >> I'm not saying users *shouldn't* be able to do this - just that I > >> haven't noticed anyone raising the issue that we'll probably start > >> seeing a fair number more bugs if replacing the system VM becomes a > >> standard practice. There's a reason, for instance, that Linux > vendors > >> don't support custom kernels - and what's being proposed here is > >> swapping out an entire OS. > >> > >> It's going to make things a bit more tricky when someone reports a > bug > >> and they're using a roll-your-own system VM and the people doing the > >> testing are using a different one. > >> > >> Again - not saying we shouldn't do this, but I'd like to see that > given > >> a bit more consideration when we're discussing the issue. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> jzb > >> -- > >> Joe Brockmeier > >> j...@zonker.net > >> Twitter: @jzb > >> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/ > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >
