On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 03:18 +0000, Todd Deshane wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Dan Magenheimer
> <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> From: Todd Deshane [mailto:deshantm@xxxxxxxxx]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 7:15 PM
> >> To: Fajar A. Nugraha
> >> Cc: Dan Magenheimer; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; keir@xxxxxxx
> >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] xen-unstable on OL6 (RHEL6 clone) problems
> >>
> >> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Fajar A. Nugraha <list@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Todd Deshane <deshantm@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> There is almost full compatibility, with the exception of being able
> >> >> to have arbitrary python code embedded. Most should work directly.
> >> >> Name the bridge the same as before and it is likely to completely
> >> work
> >> >> with most built to work with Xen 4.0
> >> >>
> >> >> I'll be sure to clarify that a bit on the wiki page.
> >> >
> >> > Reading the wiki, isn't the change only required when using xl?
> >> > Shouldn't xm and xend work just as it has always been?
> >>
> >> xm and xend are still available (for now), but using xl and libxl is
> >> preferred.
> >
> > But the answer to Fajar's question is NO, correct?
>
> I believe the answer to his question should have been yes (xend/xm are
> still there and should work as before (for now)).
There is one subtle difference in 4.1 wrt xend/xm which is that the
network scripts now look to see if there are any existing bridges
configured and if there are then they do not blow away the existing
configuration and try to setup the network themselves (IOW they exit
without doing anything if they think someone has already done it).
The assumption is that if the admin has configured the system with a
bridge already then xend has no business blowing it away.
This also allows for smoother transitions back and forth between xm and
xl since it means you can safely make the necessary configuration
changes to use xl and not have to undo them if you switch back to
xm/xend, assuming you name your bridge in a compatible way.
You may have just
> come across a bug that was tested. xm is not automatically tested by
^not?
> the automated testing system (example here:
> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/5680/)
I think xend is tested, AFAIK the sequences (columns in the above) which
do not explicitly say "xl" are all xend tests. It least one of them is:
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/5680/test-amd64-amd64-pair/info.html
Ian.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home