I'm installing Centos 5.5 on a new Dell R301 server. I wanted to run Xen and have the full virtualization possibilities (this is our development support server, so it runs a few real services and is available for playing with things; putting the "playing with things" functions into virtual servers would protect the "few real services", and make it easier to clean up afterwards).
I have enabled virtualization support in the BIOS.
/proc/cpuinfo says I have model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X3450 @ 2.67GHz
and
flags : fpu tsc msr pae cx8 apic mtrr cmov pat clflush acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht syscall nx lm constant_tsc ida pni est ssse3 cx16 sse4_1 sse4_2 popcnt lahf_lm
The "vmx" flag doesn't appear to be set.
(I'm working from http://www.centos.org/docs/5/html/Virtualization-en-US/ch-op-sys-support.html, by the way; I note that document is from 2007 or maybe even 2006, so perhaps some things aren't fully up-to-date.)
So, does that mean my Xeon-based server doesn't have hardware virtualization assistance?
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:32:12 -0500 "David Dyer-Bennet" dd-b@dd-b.net wrote:
I'm installing Centos 5.5 on a new Dell R301 server. I wanted to run Xen and have the full virtualization possibilities (this is our development support server, so it runs a few real services and is available for playing with things; putting the "playing with things" functions into virtual servers would protect the "few real services", and make it easier to clean up afterwards).
<snip>
So, does that mean my Xeon-based server doesn't have hardware virtualization assistance?
I guess such a new processor has hardware virtualization enabled, but AFAIK you need to run in x86_64 mode, is it the case ? Laurent
On Wed, July 14, 2010 12:47, Laurent Wandrebeck wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:32:12 -0500 "David Dyer-Bennet" dd-b@dd-b.net wrote:
I'm installing Centos 5.5 on a new Dell R301 server. I wanted to run Xen and have the full virtualization possibilities (this is our development support server, so it runs a few real services and is available for playing with things; putting the "playing with things" functions into virtual servers would protect the "few real services", and make it easier to clean up afterwards).
<snip> > > So, does that mean my Xeon-based server doesn't have hardware > virtualization assistance? I guess such a new processor has hardware virtualization enabled, but AFAIK you need to run in x86_64 mode, is it the case ?
Yes, I installed the x64 version of Centos.
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:32:12PM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
I'm installing Centos 5.5 on a new Dell R301 server. I wanted to run Xen and have the full virtualization possibilities (this is our development support server, so it runs a few real services and is available for playing with things; putting the "playing with things" functions into virtual servers would protect the "few real services", and make it easier to clean up afterwards).
I have enabled virtualization support in the BIOS.
/proc/cpuinfo says I have model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X3450 @ 2.67GHz
and
flags : fpu tsc msr pae cx8 apic mtrr cmov pat clflush acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht syscall nx lm constant_tsc ida pni est ssse3 cx16 sse4_1 sse4_2 popcnt lahf_lm
The "vmx" flag doesn't appear to be set.
(I'm working from http://www.centos.org/docs/5/html/Virtualization-en-US/ch-op-sys-support.html, by the way; I note that document is from 2007 or maybe even 2006, so perhaps some things aren't fully up-to-date.)
So, does that mean my Xeon-based server doesn't have hardware virtualization assistance?
It loks like X3450 has no VMX instructions.
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Dominik Zyla gavroche@gavroche.pl wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:32:12PM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
I'm installing Centos 5.5 on a new Dell R301 server. I wanted to run Xen and have the full virtualization possibilities (this is our development support server, so it runs a few real services and is available for playing with things; putting the "playing with things" functions into virtual servers would protect the "few real services", and make it easier to clean up afterwards).
I have enabled virtualization support in the BIOS.
/proc/cpuinfo says I have model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X3450 @ 2.67GHz
and
flags : fpu tsc msr pae cx8 apic mtrr cmov pat clflush acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht syscall nx lm constant_tsc ida pni est ssse3 cx16 sse4_1 sse4_2 popcnt lahf_lm
The "vmx" flag doesn't appear to be set.
(I'm working from http://www.centos.org/docs/5/html/Virtualization-en-US/ch-op-sys-support.html, by the way; I note that document is from 2007 or maybe even 2006, so perhaps some things aren't fully up-to-date.)
So, does that mean my Xeon-based server doesn't have hardware virtualization assistance?
It loks like X3450 has no VMX instructions.
-- Dominik Zyla
You might need to go into the BIOS and enable VT extensions. Many systems ship with them disabled.
On Wed, July 14, 2010 12:55, Brian Mathis wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Dominik Zyla gavroche@gavroche.pl wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:32:12PM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
I'm installing Centos 5.5 on a new Dell R301 server. I wanted to run Xen and have the full virtualization possibilities (this is our development support server, so it runs a few real services and is available for playing with things; putting the "playing with things" functions into virtual servers would protect the "few real services", and make it easier to clean up afterwards).
I have enabled virtualization support in the BIOS.
/proc/cpuinfo says I have model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X3450 @ 2.67GHz
and
flags : fpu tsc msr pae cx8 apic mtrr cmov pat clflush acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht syscall nx lm constant_tsc ida pni est ssse3 cx16 sse4_1 sse4_2 popcnt lahf_lm
The "vmx" flag doesn't appear to be set.
(I'm working from http://www.centos.org/docs/5/html/Virtualization-en-US/ch-op-sys-support.html, by the way; I note that document is from 2007 or maybe even 2006, so perhaps some things aren't fully up-to-date.)
So, does that mean my Xeon-based server doesn't have hardware virtualization assistance?
You might need to go into the BIOS and enable VT extensions. Many systems ship with them disabled.
I found one BIOS entry, "Virtualization technology"; it was initially disabled, but I enabled it before I installed CENTOS, and verified that it was still enabled later (I reported enabling it in my original message). I'll check for other suspicious BIOS entries, but more than one for this would be unusual, wouldn't it?
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 01:47:00PM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
I found one BIOS entry, "Virtualization technology"; it was initially disabled, but I enabled it before I installed CENTOS, and verified that it was still enabled later (I reported enabling it in my original message). I'll check for other suspicious BIOS entries, but more than one for this would be unusual, wouldn't it?
That's the entry. But reports are some systems need to be fully powered off for the entry to be effectively changed - some BIOSes evidently are flakey about it.
Whit
That's the entry. But reports are some systems need to be fully powered off for the entry to be effectively changed - some BIOSes evidently are flakey about it.
+1
Totally agree, forgot that...
On Wed, July 14, 2010 14:20, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 01:47:00PM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
I found one BIOS entry, "Virtualization technology"; it was initially disabled, but I enabled it before I installed CENTOS, and verified that it was still enabled later (I reported enabling it in my original message). I'll check for other suspicious BIOS entries, but more than one for this would be unusual, wouldn't it?
That's the entry. But reports are some systems need to be fully powered off for the entry to be effectively changed - some BIOSes evidently are flakey about it.
Now *there's* something I wouldn't have thought of trying on my own.
Okay, I can get physical access to the system, and probably even pull its plugs (I'm not really used to dealing with the complex cabling mess at the back; I'm mostly a software developer with some sysadmin duties for the small number of Linux boxes in this Windows shop).
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
That's the entry. But reports are some systems need to be fully powered off for the entry to be effectively changed - some BIOSes evidently are flakey about it.
Now *there's* something I wouldn't have thought of trying on my own.
Okay, I can get physical access to the system, and probably even pull its plugs (I'm not really used to dealing with the complex cabling mess at the back; I'm mostly a software developer with some sysadmin duties for the small number of Linux boxes in this Windows shop).
Another thing a part time sysadmin might not consider is applying BIOS updates, if any, for that chassis, and as applicable sub-components. Dell is quite good about issuing these, while a unit remains in production, and sometimes continues to issue them while it remains in support, particularly for the PowerEdge series
I get strange looks from my techs when I insist they do this when strange hardware problems are being manifested. All I can say is: 'but this may work' It worked last week with a Tyan motherboard dom0 that was throwing random ram errors :)
-- Russ herrold
On Wed, July 14, 2010 14:57, R P Herrold wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
That's the entry. But reports are some systems need to be fully powered off for the entry to be effectively changed - some BIOSes evidently are flakey about it.
Now *there's* something I wouldn't have thought of trying on my own.
Okay, I can get physical access to the system, and probably even pull its plugs (I'm not really used to dealing with the complex cabling mess at the back; I'm mostly a software developer with some sysadmin duties for the small number of Linux boxes in this Windows shop).
Another thing a part time sysadmin might not consider is applying BIOS updates, if any, for that chassis, and as applicable sub-components. Dell is quite good about issuing these, while a unit remains in production, and sometimes continues to issue them while it remains in support, particularly for the PowerEdge series
This is a brand-new R310, received from Dell and installed this week. Which doesn't mean it's for sure at the latest BIOS level of course.
Looks like I may have to pursue that, because powering it down for 5 minutes by my watch didn't help.
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
continues to issue them while it remains in support, particularly for the PowerEdge series
This is a brand-new R310, received from Dell and installed this week. Which doesn't mean it's for sure at the latest BIOS level of course.
* chuckle *
The other thing might be to use that device you hold beside the ear and the mouth, and let the magic voices ask you for your chassis' Service tag or Express Service Code -- the voices know all sorts of information about your box, and will offer you personalized guidance
-- R
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 16:17 -0400, R P Herrold wrote:
- chuckle *
The other thing might be to use that device you hold beside the ear and the mouth, and let the magic voices ask you for your chassis' Service tag or Express Service Code -- the voices know all sorts of information about your box, and will offer you personalized guidance
--- The manual says it supports it. Like I thought it did. http://support.us.dell.com/support/edocs/systems/peR310/en/HOM/HTML/syssetup...
Get your service tag # and do like Russ said.
John
On Wed, July 14, 2010 14:20, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 01:47:00PM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
I found one BIOS entry, "Virtualization technology"; it was initially disabled, but I enabled it before I installed CENTOS, and verified that it was still enabled later (I reported enabling it in my original message). I'll check for other suspicious BIOS entries, but more than one for this would be unusual, wouldn't it?
That's the entry. But reports are some systems need to be fully powered off for the entry to be effectively changed - some BIOSes evidently are flakey about it.
That didn't work either.
And then, elsewhere in this thread, Paul Heinlein pointed out that doing the test for vmx *from within dom0* wasn't valid. Checking the xm dmesg output, I find "VMX enabled". (I can't tell if that's been there all along, or not, at this point.)
So, Win!
Thanks to you and all the others who made suggestions.
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 1:32 PM, David Dyer-Bennet dd-b@dd-b.net wrote:
I'm installing Centos 5.5 on a new Dell R301 server. I wanted to run Xen and have the full virtualization possibilities (this is our development support server, so it runs a few real services and is available for playing with things; putting the "playing with things" functions into virtual servers would protect the "few real services", and make it easier to clean up afterwards).
No solutions to offer, but would be interested in knowing why you chose Xen instead of KVM.
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Kwan Lowe kwan.lowe@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 1:32 PM, David Dyer-Bennet dd-b@dd-b.net wrote:
I'm installing Centos 5.5 on a new Dell R301 server. I wanted to run Xen and have the full virtualization possibilities (this is our development support server, so it runs a few real services and is available for playing with things; putting the "playing with things" functions into virtual servers would protect the "few real services", and make it easier to clean up afterwards).
No solutions to offer, but would be interested in knowing why you chose Xen instead of KVM. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
I own a Xeon X3430 & X3440 and both have vmx extensions so the X3450, please recheck your BIOS config. http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=42929
On Wed, July 14, 2010 13:07, Victor Padro wrote:
I own a Xeon X3430 & X3440 and both have vmx extensions so the X3450, please recheck your BIOS config. http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=42929
The Intel page certainly says the X3450 has vt-x and vt-d.
This system is a Dell Poweredge R310, if that helps anybody realize what's going on.
Okay, boot has gotten me into the BIOS, let's see...
Under 'processor settings' we've got 64-bit Yes, Logical Processor Enabled, Virtualization Technology Enabled, Execute Disable Enabled, Processor 1 Family-Model-Stepping 06-1E-5, and it says again it's an Intel Xeon X3450 @ 2.67GHz.
I've looked in all the other BIOS categories, nothing vaguely related has turned up. My past experience with DELL Poweredge (other models) has been that the BIOS has one setting for virtualization technology, which must indeed be enabled, but this one now is (and was when I installed the current Centos installation).
Seeing the Intel confirmation that it's supposed to be there is helpful, though; it makes it easier to keep poking rather than giving up, since pretty clearly it's *supposed* to be here.
The flags from /proc/cpuinfo after this reboot where I checked the virtualization setting in the bios are:
flags : fpu tsc msr pae cx8 apic mtrr cmov pat clflush acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht syscall nx lm constant_tsc ida pni est ssse3 cx16 sse4_1 sse4_2 popcnt lahf_lm
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:06 PM, David Dyer-Bennet dd-b@dd-b.net wrote:
On Wed, July 14, 2010 13:07, Victor Padro wrote:
I own a Xeon X3430 & X3440 and both have vmx extensions so the X3450, please recheck your BIOS config. http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=42929
The Intel page certainly says the X3450 has vt-x and vt-d.
This system is a Dell Poweredge R310, if that helps anybody realize what's going on.
Okay, boot has gotten me into the BIOS, let's see...
Under 'processor settings' we've got 64-bit Yes, Logical Processor Enabled, Virtualization Technology Enabled, Execute Disable Enabled, Processor 1 Family-Model-Stepping 06-1E-5, and it says again it's an Intel Xeon X3450 @ 2.67GHz.
I've looked in all the other BIOS categories, nothing vaguely related has turned up. My past experience with DELL Poweredge (other models) has been that the BIOS has one setting for virtualization technology, which must indeed be enabled, but this one now is (and was when I installed the current Centos installation).
Seeing the Intel confirmation that it's supposed to be there is helpful, though; it makes it easier to keep poking rather than giving up, since pretty clearly it's *supposed* to be here.
The flags from /proc/cpuinfo after this reboot where I checked the virtualization setting in the bios are:
flags : fpu tsc msr pae cx8 apic mtrr cmov pat clflush acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht syscall nx lm constant_tsc ida pni est ssse3 cx16 sse4_1 sse4_2 popcnt lahf_lm
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Are you checking the stats from inside the dom0 or a domU? What's the output of 'uname -a'?
On Wed, July 14, 2010 14:09, Brian Mathis wrote:
Are you checking the stats from inside the dom0 or a domU? What's the output of 'uname -a'?
In dom0; I haven't gone ahead creating domUs yet, until I'm sure I've got the dom0 right.
[localddb@prcapp00 ~]$ uname -a Linux prcapp00.pinerivercapital.local 2.6.18-194.8.1.el5.centos.plusxen #1 SMP Wed Jul 7 12:25:41 EDT 2010 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
I ran a yum update after installing from the DVDs I had from a week or two ago, and have rebooted since that update (there wasn't a new kernel in the update).
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 2:12 PM, David Dyer-Bennet dd-b@dd-b.net wrote:
On Wed, July 14, 2010 14:09, Brian Mathis wrote:
Are you checking the stats from inside the dom0 or a domU? What's the output of 'uname -a'?
In dom0; I haven't gone ahead creating domUs yet, until I'm sure I've got the dom0 right.
[localddb@prcapp00 ~]$ uname -a Linux prcapp00.pinerivercapital.local 2.6.18-194.8.1.el5.centos.plusxen #1 SMP Wed Jul 7 12:25:41 EDT 2010 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
I ran a yum update after installing from the DVDs I had from a week or two ago, and have rebooted since that update (there wasn't a new kernel in the update).
-- David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Most of the times there are two inputs under the BIOS for Virtualization, Processor Virtualization and Mainboard Virtualization, they're not explicit as I stated but perhaps it just states as VT-D or something that you may overlooked it.
Saludos.
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 02:20:10PM -0500, Victor Padro wrote:
they're not explicit as I stated but perhaps it just states as VT-D or something that you may overlooked it.
VT-d (Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O) is virtualization for devices. With this it's possible for a guest OS to have direct exclusive access to hardware devices (maybe one of the USB controllers, or a disk controller). This is, really, a layer violation but it can be a performance gain or allow VMs to access hardware that the hypervisor can not emulate. My machine, apparently, supports VT-d in the BIOS but either the chipset (H55) doesn't support it or something else is wrong; the capability isn't available to the hypervisor.
This isn't needed for CPU virtualization to work.
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Stephen Harris lists@spuddy.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 02:20:10PM -0500, Victor Padro wrote:
they're not explicit as I stated but perhaps it just states as VT-D or something that you may overlooked it.
VT-d (Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O) is virtualization for devices. With this it's possible for a guest OS to have direct exclusive access to hardware devices (maybe one of the USB controllers, or a disk controller). This is, really, a layer violation but it can be a performance gain or allow VMs to access hardware that the hypervisor can not emulate. My machine, apparently, supports VT-d in the BIOS but either the chipset (H55) doesn't support it or something else is wrong; the capability isn't available to the hypervisor.
This isn't needed for CPU virtualization to work.
--
rgds Stephen _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Yes I know, but the idea is to look a little bit more in such entries, isn't? ;)
AFAIK, VT-d is only implemented LGA 1156/P55 and 34XX Chipsets: http://www.intel.com/products/server/chipsets/3400-3420/3400-3420-overview.h...
On 7/15/10, Victor Padro vpadro@gmail.com wrote:
AFAIK, VT-d is only implemented LGA 1156/P55 and 34XX Chipsets: http://www.intel.com/products/server/chipsets/3400-3420/3400-3420-overview.h...
AFAIK from the last couple of weeks of looking for suitable parts, some of the desktop Q series chipsets (Q35, Q45 according to Intel docs) for i-series CPU have VT-d as well. However, motherboard makers might not have enabled the function.
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 02:12:52PM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
On Wed, July 14, 2010 14:09, Brian Mathis wrote:
Are you checking the stats from inside the dom0 or a domU? What's the output of 'uname -a'?
In dom0; I haven't gone ahead creating domUs yet, until I'm sure I've got the dom0 right.
[localddb@prcapp00 ~]$ uname -a Linux prcapp00.pinerivercapital.local 2.6.18-194.8.1.el5.centos.plusxen #1 SMP Wed Jul 7 12:25:41 EDT 2010 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
I ran a yum update after installing from the DVDs I had from a week or two ago, and have rebooted since that update (there wasn't a new kernel in the update).
Please run "xm info". Do you see "hvm" entries in the caps? Also please run "xm dmesg" and search for HVM and/or VMX.
Dom0 Linux doesn't see VMX flag because Xen hypervisor (xen.gz) is using it..
-- Pasi
On Mon, July 19, 2010 04:38, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 02:12:52PM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
On Wed, July 14, 2010 14:09, Brian Mathis wrote:
Are you checking the stats from inside the dom0 or a domU? What's the output of 'uname -a'?
In dom0; I haven't gone ahead creating domUs yet, until I'm sure I've got the dom0 right.
[localddb@prcapp00 ~]$ uname -a Linux prcapp00.pinerivercapital.local 2.6.18-194.8.1.el5.centos.plusxen #1 SMP Wed Jul 7 12:25:41 EDT 2010 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
I ran a yum update after installing from the DVDs I had from a week or two ago, and have rebooted since that update (there wasn't a new kernel in the update).
Please run "xm info". Do you see "hvm" entries in the caps? Also please run "xm dmesg" and search for HVM and/or VMX.
Dom0 Linux doesn't see VMX flag because Xen hypervisor (xen.gz) is using it..
Yes, thanks (somebody had pointed this out last week, too). There was a reference to VMX in xm dmesg, which let us convince ourselves that it was properly configured.
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
The flags from /proc/cpuinfo after this reboot where I checked the virtualization setting in the bios are:
flags : fpu tsc msr pae cx8 apic mtrr cmov pat clflush acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht syscall nx lm constant_tsc ida pni est ssse3 cx16 sse4_1 sse4_2 popcnt lahf_lm
You're already running the Xen kernel and your view of /proc/cpuinfo is from the dom0, right?
I don't think you can see the vmx (Intel) or svm (AMD) flags from dom0, but the underlying hypervisor should be able to see it. Try
sudo xm dmesg | grep -i hvm
You should see something like "(XEN) HVM: VMX enabled".
Alternatively, try booting into a non-Xen kernel and taking another peek at /proc/cpuinfo.
On Wed, July 14, 2010 15:08, Paul Heinlein wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
The flags from /proc/cpuinfo after this reboot where I checked the virtualization setting in the bios are:
flags : fpu tsc msr pae cx8 apic mtrr cmov pat clflush acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht syscall nx lm constant_tsc ida pni est ssse3 cx16 sse4_1 sse4_2 popcnt lahf_lm
You're already running the Xen kernel and your view of /proc/cpuinfo is from the dom0, right?
I don't think you can see the vmx (Intel) or svm (AMD) flags from dom0, but the underlying hypervisor should be able to see it. Try
sudo xm dmesg | grep -i hvm
You should see something like "(XEN) HVM: VMX enabled".
BINGO!
Thank you. I had even wondered slightly about whether my view from within the system might not be the right one for this.
To be precise, I see:
[localddb@prcapp00 ~]$ sudo /usr/sbin/xm dmesg | grep -i hvm (XEN) HVM: VMX enabled (XEN) HVM: Hardware Assisted Paging detected and enabled.
Thank you very much!
On Wed, July 14, 2010 13:03, Kwan Lowe wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 1:32 PM, David Dyer-Bennet dd-b@dd-b.net wrote:
I'm installing Centos 5.5 on a new Dell R301 server. I wanted to run Xen and have the full virtualization possibilities (this is our development support server, so it runs a few real services and is available for playing with things; putting the "playing with things" functions into virtual servers would protect the "few real services", and make it easier to clean up afterwards).
No solutions to offer, but would be interested in knowing why you chose Xen instead of KVM.
It's the one I'm familiar with from previous use.
-
Brian Mathis -
David Dyer-Bennet -
Dominik Zyla -
Emmanuel Noobadmin -
JohnS -
Kwan Lowe -
Laurent Wandrebeck -
Pasi Kärkkäinen -
Paul Heinlein -
R P Herrold -
Stephen Harris -
Victor Padro -
Whit Blauvelt