Hi,
Is it possible to run uml under valgrind? I've seen posts from Jeff Dike dated
2002
stating that it has been done, but when I run the current uml
version (linux-2.6.19-rc5
& FedoraCore5-x86-root_fs) with valgrind 3.1.1, on a 2.4.22 host
kernel, it crashes after a few statements into its bo
On Tuesday 23 January 2007 10:19, Flavio wrote:
> OK!!
>
> Thank you.
> So, I can't get better performances now.
>
> I'm going to integrate some HPC clustering system to speed up UML even
> though I don't know if it's the right way... becouse of the I/O
> latency time.
It depends on your purpose.
I use NFS for having the guests mount separate directories on the host,
then I rsync to these from the UMLs. Works for me, and is easily cron:able
from inside the UMLs. This was convenient since my host have a directory
with shared resources for the UMLs anyway, so NFS was already set up.
If yo
How about attaching a disk with mconsole, mount it in the guest, copy
the data, umount, detach disk. done?
Chris Lightfoot wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 12:14:53PM -0500, Jonas Meyer wrote:
>> Hmm... What is the preferred method of backup for a VM then? As I
>> said, I'd rather not install s
Jonas Meyer wrote:
> I'm not sure I follow, but I'll take your word for it. Is it your
> opinion, then, that if I upgrade to 2.6.19.2 it will fix my problem?
I'm not sure about it but that bug could be one of the possible causes.
Jyrki Jaakkola
--
I normally create the guest instances on an EVMS object. I then take a
snapshot of the device after I've "frozen" and "flushed" the UML. Once I
have the snapshot created, I then reactivate the guest (let it continue
running) and deal with mounting and backing up the instance from the
snapshot.
Ton
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 12:14:53PM -0500, Jonas Meyer wrote:
> Hmm... What is the preferred method of backup for a VM then? As I
> said, I'd rather not install ssh on every guest if I don't have to.
depends how consistent a backup you need and what level of
resource usage you can tolerate. e.g.
I'm not sure I follow, but I'll take your word for it. Is it your
opinion, then, that if I upgrade to 2.6.19.2 it will fix my problem?
Jonas
Jyrki Jaakkola wrote:
> From latest 2.6.19.2 kernel change log:
>
> "[PATCH] VM: Fix nasty and subtle race in shared mmap'ed page writeback
>
> The VM la
Hmm... What is the preferred method of backup for a VM then? As I
said, I'd rather not install ssh on every guest if I don't have to.
Jonas
Chris Lightfoot wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 12:00:17PM -0500, Jonas Meyer wrote:
>> It seems to be nearly instant, yes. If not instant, it is within
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 12:00:17PM -0500, Jonas Meyer wrote:
> It seems to be nearly instant, yes. If not instant, it is within 2-3
> minutes. I am using ext3, so I should be mounting read-only. I wasn't,
> but somehow it doesn't seem like messing with the journal a little bit
> would screw up t
It seems to be nearly instant, yes. If not instant, it is within 2-3
minutes. I am using ext3, so I should be mounting read-only. I wasn't,
but somehow it doesn't seem like messing with the journal a little bit
would screw up the system in this manner... I'll fix the read-only part
and keep the
Hi!
Antoine Martin wrote:
> Even if it its, it could still be a kernel bug (and not a UML bug).
> Which type of filesystem are you using?
From latest 2.6.19.2 kernel change log:
"[PATCH] VM: Fix nasty and subtle race in shared mmap'ed page writeback
The VM layer (on the face of it, fairly reas
Chris Lightfoot wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 04:40:08PM +, Antoine Martin wrote:
>> Between stop and go the filesystem is still mounted on the guest right?
>> If so, you are screwing the filesystems by mounting them on the host:
>> the mount command will run fixups on the (journaled?) file
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 04:40:08PM +, Antoine Martin wrote:
> Between stop and go the filesystem is still mounted on the guest right?
> If so, you are screwing the filesystems by mounting them on the host:
> the mount command will run fixups on the (journaled?) filesystem.
> (You could try mou
Between stop and go the filesystem is still mounted on the guest right?
If so, you are screwing the filesystems by mounting them on the host:
the mount command will run fixups on the (journaled?) filesystem.
(You could try mounting read-only - but still, bad idea IMO)
Antoine
Jonas Meyer wrote:
ropm
matier foilsman
Press Release: USSG busses
USA Signal Technology USSG Appoints Strategic & Learning Services Its
Manufacturers Representative for New Mexico. flyman
DALLAS, TX--(MARKET WIRE)--Jan 22, 2007 -- USA Signal Technology, Inc. USSG, a
Dallas, Texas-based Company
I just discovered a bug in UML. Under a vanilla edgy eft Ubuntu install
as the host (with the linux-generic package installed for the kernel),
and using linux2.6.16.29-bs2-32bit (from Blaisorblade) for the guest
kernel, using the uml_mconsole HANDLE stop command can freeze the guest
permanently.
そろそろ・・・って感じです。彼から自立します！告白
http://www.star-lightz.com/q01/finedays
彼が気を遣ってくれてるのはわかるんですが、「は？」って感じ。
言うこと言ってから気遣ってくれよって思うんですよね。
可愛くないなぁ…と自分でも思うけど、可愛い私よりも
もっと大事な私があります。
私が好きな私でいるために、今の彼を求める事はできない私です。
ちょっと精神的にもしんどい時期なんで、
彼にもう振り回されたくないんですよね。
引
OK!!
Thank you.
So, I can't get better performances now.
I'm going to integrate some HPC clustering system to speed up UML even
though I don't know if it's the right way... becouse of the I/O
latency time.
Bye.
Flavio
2007/1/23, Blaisorblade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
On Sunday 21 January 2007 03:34, An Ching wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I had recompiled my host kernel with setting the EXT2_FS_SECURITY and
> EXT3_FS_SECURITY in filesystem configuration. My UML is OK before doing
> this, but now I can not boot the UML in the new-recompiled kernel. It just
> went to the step.
20 matches
Mail list logo
