| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] Re: blocking Xen 3.X production use: soft lockup bugs
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 01:59:20AM +0100, Ian Pratt wrote:
> > > Have you tried using -unstable and hence xen's new scheduler? This
> is
> > > less likely to provoke soft lockup false alarms.
> >
> > Haven't tried unstable yet, since this is for the production
> > infrastructure for my family's business; am in the process of
> > rebuilding with testing changeset 9762 though. (is that really tip?
> > hg log says Jun 29th for that changeset, even after a pull...)
>
> There have been no requests to back port patches since then.
>
> If you can, its really worth trying -unstable. Any changeset from over
> last weekend should be just fine.
Ian, on your advice I skipped my -testing 9762 build and went straight
to -unstable 10868. I can only saw *wow*! Night and day difference
between 9732 and 10868. See my message as of a few minutes ago for
the details, but at this point I'm considering taking 10868 into
production.
I might want -unstable anyway; I'm starting to get to the point where
I can chase that blktap/AFS idea we were discussing with Andrew in
late 2004 - early 2005.
Steve
--
Stephen G. Traugott (KG6HDQ)
UNIX/Linux Infrastructure Architect, TerraLuna LLC
stevegt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.stevegt.com -- http://Infrastructures.Org
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home