On Mon, 19 Jul 2010, Toni Mueller wrote:
> On Thu, 10.06.2010 at 17:54:28 +0200, Bastian Blank
wrote:
> > My personal preference would be to go with 4.0.
>
> If it's one, then I opt for 4.0.
I've got a few systems running Xen 4.0 now. It's working pretty well.
I've got one system where the l
Hi,
I know that I'm a bit late...
On Thu, 10.06.2010 at 17:54:28 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> My personal preference would be to go with 4.0.
If it's one, then I opt for 4.0.
Thank you very much!
Kind regards,
--Toni++
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
wit
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 11:47:49PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Bastian Blank dijo [Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 05:54:28PM +0200]:
> > Hi folks
> >
> > I'm currently thinking about which version of Xen supporting in Squeeze.
> > There are two possibilities: 3.4 and 4.0. 3.4 is currently in testing
> > and
Bastian Blank dijo [Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 05:54:28PM +0200]:
> Hi folks
>
> I'm currently thinking about which version of Xen supporting in Squeeze.
> There are two possibilities: 3.4 and 4.0. 3.4 is currently in testing
> and unstable, 4.0 is in experimental.
Are both releases supporting running
Russell Coker wrote:
> Sometimes you test two options and find that for some systems one works well
> and for other systems the other works well. Then if both options are
> available you can get most (maybe all) systems working well, but if one
> option
> isn't available then some systems don'
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 07:33:58AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> ?ukasz Ole? wrote:
> > 2010/6/10 Bastian Blank :
> >>> My personal preference would be to go with 4.0.
> >
> > I completely agree. Probably more people will use pvops kernel with
> > 4.0 instead 3.4, so hopefully it will be better t
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 09:55:58AM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 07:33:58AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > ?ukasz Ole? wrote:
> > > 2010/6/10 Bastian Blank :
> > >>> My personal preference would be to go with 4.0.
> > >
> > > I completely agree. Probably more people wil
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:23:04PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 05:54:28PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > > I'm currently thinking about which version of Xen supporting in Squeeze.
> > > There are two possibilities: 3.4 and 4.
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, "James Harper" wrote:
> It would be nice if it could automatically detect xen kernels when you
> update-grub it though... or maybe that's what you were asking? Adding a
> custom section to the .d directory works but is a bit messy.
Yes, I applied a patch for that based on a g
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Russell Coker wrote:
> > Based on my experience with Xen I think that we should have both. Then
> > if one doesn't work we can try the other.
>
> I don't think having to do a double work is a good idea.
I agree that doubling the work is generally a b
>
> PS It would be nice if we could get Grub2 updated to boot Xen
kernels. My SE
> Linux Play Machine is offline right now because I messed up the Grub2
> configuration so badly that it won't even give me a boot menu.
>
I'm running grub from squeeze with a hand-compiled xen
4.0.1-rc. There are
[3.4 vs. 4.0 ...]
>
> Based on my experience with Xen I think that we should have both. Then if
> one
> doesn't work we can try the other.
>
> My impression of Xen stability is that trying two different versions and
> hoping that one will work is a good strategy for any given server.
>
> Ba
Russell Coker wrote:
> Based on my experience with Xen I think that we should have both. Then if
> one
> doesn't work we can try the other.
I don't think having to do a double work is a good idea.
> My impression of Xen stability is that trying two different versions and
> hoping that one wil
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 05:54:28PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > I'm currently thinking about which version of Xen supporting in Squeeze.
> > There are two possibilities: 3.4 and 4.0. 3.4 is currently in testing
> > and unstable, 4.0 is in experimental
Łukasz Oleś wrote:
> 2010/6/10 Bastian Blank :
>>> My personal preference would be to go with 4.0.
>
> I completely agree. Probably more people will use pvops kernel with
> 4.0 instead 3.4, so hopefully it will be better tested.
Hi Bastian,
I have been running Xen 4.0.0 on my laptop since you ma
2010/6/10 Bastian Blank :
>> My personal preference would be to go with 4.0.
I completely agree. Probably more people will use pvops kernel with
4.0 instead 3.4, so hopefully it will be better tested.
--
Łukasz Oleś
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subje
Le jeudi 10 juin 2010 à 17:54 +0200, Bastian Blank a écrit :
> Xen 4.0
> ===
> Pros
> - NUMA
> - More tested with the Kernel in Squeeze
> Cons
> - Quite new
>
> My personal preference would be to go with 4.0.
Your description sounds like it will be a lot easier to support 4.0, so
unless there
Whoops, wrong recipient.
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 05:54:28PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> I'm currently thinking about which version of Xen supporting in Squeeze.
> There are two possibilities: 3.4 and 4.0. 3.4 is currently in testing
> and unstable, 4.0 is in experimental.
>
> Xen 3.4
> ===
Hi folks
I'm currently thinking about which version of Xen supporting in Squeeze.
There are two possibilities: 3.4 and 4.0. 3.4 is currently in testing
and unstable, 4.0 is in experimental.
Xen 3.4
===
Pros
- Proofed to be stable
Cons
- NUMA-mode only opt-in, no infos about stability
- Fails
19 matches
Mail list logo
