Re: [Xen-users] Re: Access Hypervisor Control from DomU

[Stephan Seitz <s.seitz@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

John Smith schrieb:
> Nils Toedtmann wrote:
>>
>>
>> I remember reading that the only real difference between a dom0
>> and a domU kernel is the priviledge to have access to the
>> hypervisor. Why not declaring a special domU to a "fallback"
>> dom0? Not in the sense of having access to hw but control over
>> the hypervisor.
>>
>> That would help if the original dom0 userland dies, but it's
>> kernel keeps forwarding/bridging packets and blockdevice-I/O,
>> like Stephan's dom0 did.
>>
>> /nils.
>>
Thanks for this hint, Nils. I'll try to setup another test system with
two dom0's,
just to see if this is possible. I'll post results if this leads to a
running system.

> Hi,
>
> if this would be a problem you would have to deal with in the real
> world, you would have a identical box on another location and move
> the domU's to it and reboot the problem box.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Jan.
This was my first thought, but we didn't setup a fallback system (the
one, i
talked about, is just for testing purposes installed). Also, this
machine has all
it's filesystems on local disk, so a domU migration would last longer than
driving to the colo. For live systems, i would also prefer this
scenario, but i think
this is not managable without the use of a NAS/SAN.

Greetings

Stephan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFELDDSsU1z66G/Ui4RAu9EAKCMWclUJReeM5WGRBaS05HrQmK10wCfRtQL
RHIjP0k/dy9ZxHaq3LwU4DQ=
=kTZE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users