Re: [Xen-API] Guest Utilities - HVM vs PV mode

[George Shuklin <george.shuklin@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 11.02.2013 23:30, Alexandre Kouznetsov wrote:
> Hello, George.
>
> El 15/01/13 01:38, George Shuklin escribiÃ:
> > xe vm-list uuid=... params=HVM-boot-policy, if not empty, HVM mode, if
> > empty - PV mode.
> Well, that seems a good criteria, but there is something still unclear 
> to me.
> I have deployed a Debian 6.0 64-bit machine on a XCP 1.6. Judging by 
> HVM-boot-policy parameter (empty) and PV-bootloader (pygrub) it's 
> running in PV mode. It boots Squeeze's default kernel, 2.6.32-5-amd64 
> (not 2.6.32-5-xen-amd64).
> But, my VM's dmesg output mentions Xen, including this specific 
> reference:
> [    0.000000] Booting paravirtualized kernel on Xen
> [    0.000000] Xen version: 4.1.3 (preserve-AD)
>
> How so?
> Does Squeeze's linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64 already includes Xen PV 
> support? I believed it was included since v3.0.
> I'm quite sure it's the same stock kernel image, I has the same MD5 
> hash as a regular Debian 6.0 64-bit installation I have around.
> (BTW, didn't knew pygrub already worked with Grub2 config file, 
> apparently it does!)
> I must say, I'm quite happy with this setup, so there is no need to do 
> anything else to convert my VM to PV mode, but I don't understand it.
> Thank you.
yep, 2.6.32 already has (limited) support for xen in pv_ops , means it 
can operate in PV mode under XCP. But you gonna hit few bugs (time 
jerking during migration, some issues with dynamic memory).

_______________________________________________
Xen-api mailing list
Xen-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-api