Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Feb 26, Luca Capello <l...@pca.it> wrote: > >>>> 5) Do we recommend that new installations of lenny or of squeeze avoid >>>> Xen for ease of upgrading to squeeze+1? If so, what should they use? >>> It depends. KVM in lenny is buggy and lacks important features. While it >>> works fine for development and casual use I do not recommend using it in >>> production for critical tasks. >> Is the qemu-kvm backport the "correct" solution, then? > You also need a recent kvm driver in the host, so probably you should > just use a newer kernel at least in the host. > I have tens of lenny guests (with their standard kernels) on RHEL 5.4 > hosts and so far I had no issues, but so far most guests are not heavily > loaded. The biggest problem for me (and work) right now is live migration. Among other things, there are known, fixed-but-not-yet-upstream issues with the KVM paravirt clock which prevents live migration from working. Unfortunately, there's also no way to disable the paravirt clock from the host unless you patch qemu or wrap ioctl() and filter the capability (I did the latter).
Beyond that, I've also seen filesystem corruption when using live migration and the filesystem cache hasn't been disabled -- an almost undocumented directive of libvirt's XML. All in all, I'm wondering how people can call this "stable". Regards, Faidon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4b893bd4.1070...@debian.org
