> For buster, we generate a cloud kernel for amd64. For sid/bullseye,
> we'll also support a cloud kernel for arm64. At the moment, the cloud
> kernel is the only used in the images we generate for Microsoft Azure
> and Amazon EC2. It's used in the GCE images we generate as well, but
> I'm not sure
On 4/4/20 5:42 PM, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
>> So, when I'm being asked about it, my answer from an OpenStack operator
>> point of view, is always a big "NO !". I want to be able to service my
>> compute nodes. This means being able to live-migrate the workload away,
>> otherwise, customers may notice
On Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 10:17:20AM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > The first two bugs are about nested virtualization. I like the idea of
> > deciding to support that or not. I don't know much about nested virt,
> > so I don't have a strong opinion. It seems pretty widely supported on
> > our p
On 4/4/20 1:34 AM, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 03:15:37PM -0400, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
>> There are open bugs against the cloud kernel requesting that
>> configuration options be turned on there. [1][2][3]
>
>
>
>> 1. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=952108
>
On 4/2/20 7:55 PM, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 03:15:37PM -0400, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
>> Should we simply say "yes" to any request to add functionality to the
>> cloud kernel? None of the drivers will add *that* much to the size of
>> the image, and if people are asking for t
5 matches
Mail list logo
