|
|
| (505 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | [[Category:Virtualization]] <!-- do not copy into FWN issue --> |
| | |
| {{Anchor|Virtualization}} | | {{Anchor|Virtualization}} |
| | |
|
| |
|
| == Virtualization == | | == Virtualization == |
| | In this section, we cover discussion of Fedora virtualization technologies on the |
| | @fedora-virt list. |
|
| |
|
| In this section, we cover discussion of Fedora virtualization features.
| | Contributing Writer: [[User:Dale | Dale Bewley]] |
|
| |
|
| Contributing Writer: [[DaleBewley | Dale Bewley]]
| | === Fedora Virtualization List === |
| | | This section contains the discussion happening on the |
| === Enterprise Management Tools List === | | [http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-virt fedora-virt list]. |
| This section contains the discussion happening on the [https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/et-mgmt-tools et-mgmt-tools list] | |
| | |
| === Fedora Xen List ===
| |
| | |
| This section contains the discussion happening on the [https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-xen fedora-xen list].
| |
| | |
| ==== kernel-xen is dead ====
| |
| [[MarkMcLoughlin|Mark McLoughlin]] wrote[1] to say the <code>kernel-xen</code> package is dead. Which is to say <code>kernel</code> can now support x86 and x86_64 domU guests and <code>kernel-xen</code> will be dropped from Rawhide.
| |
| | |
| Hiding between those lines is the fact that there is currently no Dom0 kernel in F9 or Rawhide. Without which a domU must be booted via a [[Features/XenPvops | paravirt_ops]] kernel or with KVM-based [http://kraxel.fedorapeople.org/xenner/ xenner].
| |
| | |
| The conversation then turned to the matter of migrating away from Xen and support for systems without hardware virtualization.
| |
| | |
| So, [[PaulWouters|Paul Wouters]] asked[2] if there was a howto for migration to KVM. It seemed there is not.
| |
| | |
| [[AlainWilliams|Alain Williams]] realized that Fedora 9 [[Docs/Beats/Virtualization | has no Dom0 support]] after installing it. When he asked why [[MarkMcLoughlin|Mark McLoughlin]] pointed[3] out the problems with <code>kernel-xen</code> being based on a much older kernel than <code>kernel</code> creating a time sink, so the decision was made to rebase to the upstream kernel which supports paravirt_ops. This decision was first announced[4] back in Nov 2007 by [[DanielBerrange | Daniel P. Berrange]].
| |
| | |
| [[MarkMcLoughlin|Mark McLoughlin]] also stated[3] that Dom0 support at F10 launch looks unlikely. Fortunately we have a more positive news on that front below.
| |
| | |
| [[DaleBewley|Dale Bewley]] bemoaned[5] the fact that he has no budget to upgrade to HVM capable hardware and will have to stick on F8 until F10 has Dom0 support.
| |
| | |
| [[StephenSmoogen|Stephen Smoogen]] pointed[6] out that RHEL5 and CentOS5 are options for Dom0 on non-HVM hardware. [[DanielBerrange|Daniel Berrange]] expressed[7] some empathy and the desire for such support, but reitterated it isn't viable until Dom0 is ported to pv_ops.
| |
| | |
| [1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-xen/2008-July/msg00044.html
| |
| | |
| [2] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-xen/2008-July/msg00046.html
| |
| | |
| [3] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-xen/2008-July/msg00048.html
| |
| | |
| [4] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-xen/2007-November/msg00106.html
| |
| | |
| [5] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-xen/2008-July/msg00049.html
| |
| | |
| [6] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-xen/2008-July/msg00052.html
| |
| | |
| [7] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-xen/2008-July/msg00053.html
| |
| | |
| ==== State of Xen in upstream Linux ====
| |
|
| |
|
| [[PasiKärkkäinen|Pasi Kärkkäinen]] thoughtfully forwarded[1] a long detailed xen kernel status message which was sent to the xen-devel list by [[JeremyFitzhardinge|Jeremy Fitzhardinge]]. Jeremy pointed out that mainline kernel is at 2.6.27-rc1 and his current patch stack is pretty much empty after being merged into linux-2.6.git. | | ==== Virt Status Report ==== |
| | [[JustinForbes|Justin Forbes]] |
| | posted<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-virt/2009-December/msg00056.html</ref> a Fedora virtualization status report. |
| | Justin pointed out F13 bugs<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Virtualization_bugs</ref> now include Important and Pony classifications in addition to Blocker and Target. |
|
| |
|
| Jeremy stated the fact that Fedora 9's kernel-xen package was based on the mainline kernel even though it's been a separate package. Now that kernel-xen has been dropped from rawhide Fedora 10 will have only one kernel package. Jeremy said his focus in the next kernel development window will be obvious missing dom0 support with the hope it will be merged into 2.6.28. That work will likely take place in a xen.git on [http://xen.org/ Xen.org].
| | <references /> |
|
| |
|
| Jeremy then provided his long TODO list with a request for help fullfilling it. In addition he asked what's missing.
| | ==== RHEL and Fedora Virtualization Feature Parity ==== |
| | Robert Day wondered how the virtualization features<ref>http://www.redhat.com/virtualization/rhev/</ref> of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.4 |
| | compared to Fedora 12. |
|
| |
|
| [[PaulWouters|Paul Wouters]] followed up[2] on Jeremy's question of "What's
| | [[DanielBerrange|Daniel Berrange]] |
| missing?" with the answer of a lack of entropy in the guests. [[DanielBerrange|Daniel Berrange]] mentioned [[RustyRussell|Rusty Russell's]] VirtIO-RNG patch from [http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-kernel/2008/5/15/1836574 this thread]. [[ThorstenLeemhuis|Thorsten Leemhuis]] provided a link to [http://lwn.net/Articles/283103/ this LWN article] on the subject of entropy sources and showed that this patch [http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=f7f510ec195781c857ab76366a3e1c59e1caae42 is in 2.6.26].
| | explained<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-virt/2009-December/msg00040.html</ref> |
| | "The KVM based virtualization in RHEL-5.4 is not nearly so far behind |
| | Fedora as you might think. The {{package|libvirt}} mgmt stack in RHEL-5.4 was |
| | rebased to be near parity with [[Releases/11|Fedora 11]], and KVM in RHEL-5.4 is |
| | also pretty close to that using what's best described as a hybrid of |
| | kvm-83 and kvm-84." |
|
| |
|
| [1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-xen/2008-July/msg00058.html
| | <references /> |
|
| |
|
| [2] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-xen/2008-July/msg00059.html
| |
|
| |
|
| [3] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-xen/2008-August/msg00000.html
| | ==== ==== |
| | <references /> |
|
| |
|
| === Libvirt List === | | ==== ==== |
| This section contains the discussion happening on the [https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list libvir-list].
| | <references /> |
| | |
| === oVirt Devel List === | |
| This section contains the discussion happening on the
| |
| [https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ovirt-devel ovirt-devel list].
| |
libvirt