-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >I don't see any particular benefit offered by running a 2.4 kernel in a >2.6 Xen host. If 2.6 doesn't do something for you that 2.4 does, that >needs fixing. Not particularly in Fedora, but for RHEL there is a definite use for running RHAS 2.1 and RHEL 3 on a newer (kernel 2.6-based) RHEL release. Oracle 9i seems to really like RHAS 2.1, running on RHEL 3.0 requiring compat stuff, and nevermind getting it to run on RHEL 4. Not that I'd necessarily claim it's worth the effort to maintain, but for the 18 month life / 5 year support lifecycle of RHEL, providing such a Xen-based migration path would have some utility. Particularly if Xen 3.0 ends up supporting live-migration and evacuation of VMs across clustered nodes. - -- Everytime I write a rhyme these people thinks its a crime I tell `em what's on my mind. I guess I'm a CRIMINAL! I don't gotta say a word I just flip `em the bird and keep goin, I don't take shit from no one. I'm a CRIMINAL! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP SDK 3.2.2 iQA/AwUBQlDhY6PyPrIkdfXsEQItSACeKbz5ek2C3u2vpXhWTGRJORcANzkAoISQ hYXlEhW4wjyfqV11HVvRp1yW =mkCX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
