Hello, I started with a couple of noteworthy threads on the fedora-xen list and put the following very preliminary draft together in the last couple hours. Is there a consensus on where I could/should park this on the wiki while under construction? Any comments on my structure/methodology so far? Some threads can get quite detailed and I'm sure it's not expected that they all get the same level of treatment for FWN. I would like to make the summaries more useful by linking to related articles in the wiki. Is this kosher? Also, I applied to the fedora-news group on FAS and look forward to membership approval and doing what I can. == Fedora-xen List == This section contains the discussion happening on the fedora-xen list. === kernel-xen is dead === [MarkMcLoughlin|Mark McLoughlin] wrote[1] to say the <code>kernel-xen</code> package is dead. Which is to say <code>kernel</code> can now support x86 and x86_64 domU guests and <code>kernel-xen</code> will be dropped from Rawhide. Hiding between those lines is the fact that there is no Dom0 kernel. Without which a domU must be booted via a [Features/XenPvops paravirt_ops] kernel or with KVM-based xenner. The conversation then turned to the matter of migrating away from Xen and support for systems without hardware virtualization. So, [PaulWouters|Paul Wouters] asked[2] if there was a howto for migration to KVM. It seemed there is not. [AlainWilliams|Alain Williams] realized that Fedora 9 [Docs/Beats/Virtualization has no Dom0 support] after installing it. When he asked why [MarkMcLoughlin|Mark McLoughlin] pointed[3] out the problems with <code>kernel-xen</code> being based on a much older kernel than <code>kernel</code> creating a time sink, so the decision was made to rebase to the upstream kernel which supports paravirt_ops. This decision was first announced[4] back in Nov 2007 by [DanielBerrange | Daniel P. Berrange]. [MarkMcLoughlin|Mark McLoughlin] also stated[3] that Dom0 support at F10 launch looks unlikely. Fortunately we have a more positive news on that front below. [DaleBewley|Dale Bewley] bemoaned[5] the fact that he has no budget to upgrade to HVM capable hardware and will have to stick on F8 until F10 has Dom0 support. [StephenSmoogen|Stephen John Smoogen] pointed[6] out that RHEL5 and CentOS5 are options for Dom0 on non-HVM hardware. [DanielBerrange|Daniel P. Berrange] expressed[7] some empathy and the desire for such support, but reitterated it isn't viable until Dom0 is ported to pv_ops. [1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-xen/2008-July/msg00044.html [2] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-xen/2008-July/msg00046.html [3] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-xen/2008-July/msg00048.html [4] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-xen/2007-November/msg00106.html [5] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-xen/2008-July/msg00049.html [6] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-xen/2008-July/msg00052.html [7] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-xen/2008-July/msg00053.html === State of Xen in upstream Linux === [PasiKärkkäinen|Pasi Kärkkäinen] thoughtfully forwarded[1] a long detailed xen kernel status message which was sent to the xen-devel list by [JeremyFitzhardinge|Jeremy Fitzhardinge]. Jeremy pointed out that mainline kernel is at 2.6.27-rc1 and his current patch stack is pretty much empty after being merged into linux-2.6.git. Jeremy reitterated the fact that Fedora 9's kernel-xen package was based on the mainline kernel even though it is a separate package, and now that kernel-xen has been dropped from rawhide Fedora 10 will have only one kernel package. Jeremy said his focus in the next kernel development window will be dom0 support with the hope it will be merged into 2.6.28. [1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-xen/2008-July/msg00058.html _______________________________________________ Fedora-news-list mailing list Fedora-news-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-news-list
