|
|
| (499 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 on the @et-mgmnt-tools-list, @fedora-xen-list, @libvirt-list and @ovirt-devel-list of Fedora virtualization technologies.
| | 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. That is to say the <code>kernel</code> package 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 Fedora 9 or Rawhide. Without such a Dom0 kernel a domU must be booted via a [[Features/XenPvops | paravirt_ops]] kernel or with the KVM-based [http://kraxel.fedorapeople.org/xenner/ xenner].
| |
| | |
| [1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-xen/2008-July/msg00044.html
| |
| | |
| The conversation then turned to the matter of migrating away from Xen and support for systems without hardware virtualization. [[PaulWouters|Paul Wouters]] asked[2] if there was a howto for migration to KVM. It seemed there is not, but all are encouraged to provide one.
| |
| | |
| [2] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-xen/2008-July/msg00046.html
| |
| | |
| [[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 re-base to the upstream kernel which supports paravirt_ops. This decision was first announced[4] back in Nov 2007 by [[DanielBerrange | Daniel Berrange]]. [[MarkMcLoughlin|Mark McLoughlin]] also stated[3] that Dom0 support at Fedora 10 launch looks unlikely. Fortunately we have more positive news on that front below.
| |
| | |
| [3] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-xen/2008-July/msg00048.html
| |
| | |
| [4] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-xen/2007-November/msg00106.html
| |
| | |
| [[DaleBewley|Dale Bewley]] bemoaned[5] the fact that he has no budget to upgrade to HVM capable hardware and will have to stick on Fedora 8 until Fedora 10 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 reiterated it isn't viable until Dom0 is ported to pv_ops.
| |
| | |
| [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 <code>xen kernel</code> 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.
| |
| | |
| [1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-xen/2008-July/msg00058.html
| |
| | |
| Jeremy stated that Fedora 9's <code>kernel-xen</code> package was based on the mainline kernel even though it's been a separate package. Now that <code>kernel-xen</code> has been dropped from rawhide there will be only one kernel package in Fedora 10. 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]. Jeremy then provided his long TODO list with a request for help fullfilling it. In addition he asked what's missing.
| |
| | |
| [[PaulWouters|Paul Wouters]] followed up[2] on Jeremy's question of "What's 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].
| |
| | |
| [2] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-xen/2008-July/msg00059.html
| |
| | |
| [3] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-xen/2008-August/msg00000.html
| |
| | |
| ==== Creating Multiple Xen Bridges ====
| |
| | |
| [[AndyBurns|Andy Burns]] asked[1] for a clean way to utilize the two NICs in a Dom0 server as multiple bridges. [[KanwarSandhu|Kanwar Sandhu]] recommended[2] editing ''xend-config.sxp'' to utilize a very small custom network-bridge-wrapper script also provided in the post. Another option pointed[3] out on the list was to short-circuit ''xend-config.sxp'' and configure all networking by hand in ''/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts''.
| |
| | |
| [1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-xen/2008-August/msg00004.html
| |
| | |
| [2] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-xen/2008-August/msg00005.html
| |
| | |
| [3] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-xen/2008-August/msg00008.html
| |
| | |
| === Libvirt List ===
| |
| This section contains the discussion happening on the [https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list libvir-list].
| |
| | |
| ==== PATCH: Fix Setting of Bridge Forward-delay ====
| |
|
| |
|
| [[ChristophHöger|Christoph Höger]] described[1] a problem which caused a bridge to not pass traffic for a number of seconds after activation. Just a few minutes later [[DanielBerrange|Daniel Berrange]] posted[2] a fix for a bug which had <code>libvirt</code> to ignore the ''fd'' attribute of <nowiki><bridge></nowki> ellement. The workaround in the meantime is to set ''fd=1''. | | ==== 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. |
|
| |
|
| [1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2008-August/msg00017.html
| | <references /> |
|
| |
|
| [2] https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2008-August/msg00020.html
| | ==== 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. |
|
| |
|
| [[DanielVeillard|Daniel Veillard]] plus-oned[3] that patch and expressed that with the last release having been on June 25th, it may be time for a new release. [[DanielBerrange|Daniel Berrange]] mentioned[4] that the Xen & QEMU refactoring | | [[DanielBerrange|Daniel Berrange]] |
| needs more testing, and the LXC and OpenVZ drivers need porting to the new
| | explained<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-virt/2009-December/msg00040.html</ref> |
| XML routines. The last word[5] was to delay another week.
| | "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." |
|
| |
|
| [3] https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2008-August/msg00025.html
| | <references /> |
|
| |
|
| [4] https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2008-August/msg00030.html
| |
|
| |
|
| [5] https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2008-August/msg00036.html
| | ==== ==== |
| | <references /> |
|
| |
|
| === oVirt Devel List === | | ==== ==== |
| This section contains the discussion happening on the
| | <references /> |
| [https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ovirt-devel ovirt-devel list].
| |
libvirt