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

[George Shuklin <george.shuklin@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 20.02.2013 02:45, Pasi KÃrkkÃinen wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 08:02:56AM +0400, George Shuklin wrote:
> > On 12.02.2013 01:12, Alexandre Kouznetsov wrote:
> > > Hello.
> > >
> > > El 11/02/13 14:52, Pasi KÃrkkÃinen escribiÃ:
> > > > > 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.
> > > > Upstream Linux has had Xen domU support since 2.6.24.
> > > > So yes, Linux 2.6.32 default kernel has pvops Xen PV support.
> > > I feel like need to go back to school... Have always been using
> > > *-xen kernels, even in DomU's.
> > -xen kernels is still better.
> >
> > All vanilla kernels<  3.0 can't raise memory over initial value
> > (even static max>  dynamic max), and time is screwed after
> > migration, and MemTotal is not equal to mem_kb for domain... It can
> > works, but we still using suse's -xen forward-ported kernels,
> > because they more polished, than upstream.
> kernel-xen in Squeeze is *not* Suse's forward-ported kernel.
> It's pvops, with some additional patches for pvops dom0 support.
Squeeze kernel is really bad, so we using suse 3.1-xen for debian and 
ubuntu.
_______________________________________________
Xen-api mailing list
Xen-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-api