WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-users

RE: [Xen-users] suggestions for most stable config?

To: "Tom Brown" <tbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-users] suggestions for most stable config?
From: "Ian Pratt" <m+Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 22:16:25 +0100
Cc: ian.pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 21:16:07 +0000
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
List-help: <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-users@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcVGrLfWZrfjYq+GTIqOtfevYZ5AyAACl0bA
Thread-topic: [Xen-users] suggestions for most stable config?
> I did this (2.6 -> 2.4) because someone suggested offlist it 
> might be more stable, and someone else was told that there 
> might still be some performance bottlenecks in the 2.6.10 
> code for disk I/O ... which could be interpretted as 
> suggesting the 2.4 code is more polished (which considering 
> it is a slower moving target would make sense).

2.0-testing has fixes for the 2.6 disk performance issue. We're planning
on rolling out 2.0.6 as soon as we get a chance to investigate a rare
migration issue that's been reported.
 
> So, this begs the question: Are there guidelines for a "best"
> configuration? We're currently trying to use XEN to 
> consolidate machines by elimating some old dedicated purpose 
> boxes that probably should be retired anyway. Stability is 
> more important than performance, especially if we're going to 
> see the physical machine reboot (and I did with the old
> 2.6 config) ... After that we will use XEN to create new 
> services, but again, stability is more important than performance.

We use 2.6 in all of our production systems. I'd say that the vast
majority of testing is done on 2.6 thesedays.

Ian 

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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>