Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 3/4/08 14:27, "Christopher S. Aker" <caker@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> I misspoke, dom0 was the 2.6.16.33. domUs were a mix of 2.6.24.3
>> pv_ops, and 2.6.18.8. We have about a dozen of these boxes deployed
>> with this version, each with 30-40 domains just doing their thing --
>> nothing crazy.
>
> That's interesting. 2.6.24 is less tested than other Linux kernels, and
> being pv_ops it is quite different. It's not unlikely to have corner-case
> bugs that crash it or, worst case, tickle dormant problems in the
hypervisor
> itself.
>
>> Maybe the symbols would help just a little bit? In any case, here are
>> the files:
>>
>> http://theshore.net/~caker/xen/BUGfatal_page_fault/
>
> I will take a look. It might help narrow down the possibilities a bit.
>
>> I guess I'll set up a thrash test environment full of nothing but
>> domains looping crashme and make -j kernel builds and the like. Sounds
>> like fun.
>
> Okay, is this a bug you've seen exactly once so far? That would be
annoying!
So far just the one time.
We just took Xen out of (a three year) beta, and so we're gearing up for
a large deployment and need to eliminate any potential host/hypervisor
crashes. I can deal with domain bugs, but having the whole box go down
is painful. Needless to say, I'm anxious to get this fixed, and will
help in any way I can. Can I provide anything else that you can think of?
In the meantime, we'll work up a thrash-xen box.
Thanks,
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home