RE: Using the -xen kernel rather than -xen0/U was [Xen-users] Po

To:	"Anand" <xen.mails@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject:	RE: Using the -xen kernel rather than -xen0/U was [Xen-users] Poorhard disk performance on xen-3/dom0
From:	"Ian Pratt" <m+Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Sun, 1 Jan 2006 15:51:45 -0000
Cc:	ian.pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx, "Eric S. Johansson" <esj@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, David H <davidh.davidh@xxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date:	Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:56:36 +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:	AcYOj9V93yZWIHivTRuFsvRqXg44MwASAS4A
Thread-topic:	Using the -xen kernel rather than -xen0/U was [Xen-users] Poorhard disk performance on xen-3/dom0

 
> Thanks for the reply Ian. Fernando on this list told me about 
> the vifname parameter being excluded from xen 3.0 (doesn't 
> work either when i try to use it inside the config) and was 
> reincluded in unstable, any ideas when it would make it to 
> the stable /rpm. 

There's a few things we want to get into to -unstable before we roll
3.0.1, such as the xen subarch changes and 2.6.14. Maybe 2-4 weeks. 

With all the regression testing, the -unstable tree is usually stable
(unless you're unlucky and get a bad changeset), so plenty of people do
use it in production.

Ian

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

WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

xen-users

RE: Using the -xen kernel rather than -xen0/U was [Xen-users] Poorhard d