I see that kvm has been updated since Sept. 08 2007, and qemu hasn't since Sept. 12 2007.
I understand that redhat is migrating from xen to kvm, I'm curious if that has provoked this reduced maintenance or if interest was just lost.
If this is of interest to others, Qemu 0.9.1 does provide a lot more features lacking in 0.9.0 that I would like to use, including virtio and e1000 NIC models, which provide better performance, as well as netbooting virtuals.
I'm curious to hear everyones thoughts on this.
Best Regards, Michael Schenck
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Michael Schenck limeschenck@gmail.com wrote:
I see that kvm has been updated since Sept. 08 2007, and qemu hasn't since Sept. 12 2007.
I understand that redhat is migrating from xen to kvm, I'm curious if that has provoked this reduced maintenance or if interest was just lost.
If this is of interest to others, Qemu 0.9.1 does provide a lot more features lacking in 0.9.0 that I would like to use, including virtio and e1000 NIC models, which provide better performance, as well as netbooting virtuals.
I'm curious to hear everyones thoughts on this.
Daniel de Kok has been busy with real life but I'm sure he is still interested in pushing kvm forward. He has provided qemu 0.9.1 here:
http://people.centos.org/daniel/packages/qemu/
Akemi
That's great, do you know if he package an update of kmod-kvm and kvm since -36?
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Akemi Yagi amyagi@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Michael Schenck limeschenck@gmail.com wrote:
I see that kvm has been updated since Sept. 08 2007, and qemu hasn't
since
Sept. 12 2007.
I understand that redhat is migrating from xen to kvm, I'm curious if
that
has provoked this reduced maintenance or if interest was just lost.
If this is of interest to others, Qemu 0.9.1 does provide a lot more features lacking in 0.9.0 that I would like to use, including virtio and e1000 NIC models, which provide better performance, as well as netbooting virtuals.
I'm curious to hear everyones thoughts on this.
Daniel de Kok has been busy with real life but I'm sure he is still interested in pushing kvm forward. He has provided qemu 0.9.1 here:
http://people.centos.org/daniel/packages/qemu/
Akemi _______________________________________________ CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
Akemi Yagi wrote:
If there is some feedback on this, would it be worth moving from there into the stable repo's ?
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
Akemi Yagi wrote:
If there is some feedback on this, would it be worth moving from there into the stable repo's ?
Maybe we should ask Daniel if he'd got any feedback. I don't remember if that qemu was publicly announced or not.
Akemi
Michael Schenck wrote:
I see that kvm has been updated since Sept. 08 2007, and qemu hasn't since Sept. 12 2007.
I understand that redhat is migrating from xen to kvm, I'm curious if that has provoked this reduced maintenance or if interest was just lost.
If this is of interest to others, Qemu 0.9.1 does provide a lot more features lacking in 0.9.0 that I would like to use, including virtio and e1000 NIC models, which provide better performance, as well as netbooting virtuals.
I'm curious to hear everyones thoughts on this.
as i wrote earlier i've got many packages backported from fedora: http://www.lfarkas.org/linux/packages/centos/5/SRPMS/ but none of them really working (there are many kvm bugs on rhel/centos-5 which is not fixed:-()
Farkas Levente wrote:
as i wrote earlier i've got many packages backported from fedora: http://www.lfarkas.org/linux/packages/centos/5/SRPMS/ but none of them really working (there are many kvm bugs on rhel/centos-5 which is not fixed:-()
its a bit academic to have packages if they dont work!
Also, has anyone been able to look into kvm-69 which *is* supposed to work on El5 / CentOS5 ?
Karanbir Singh wrote:
Farkas Levente wrote:
as i wrote earlier i've got many packages backported from fedora: http://www.lfarkas.org/linux/packages/centos/5/SRPMS/ but none of them really working (there are many kvm bugs on rhel/centos-5 which is not fixed:-()
its a bit academic to have packages if they dont work!
each of them working with _some_ guest but none of them working with all..
Farkas Levente wrote:
Karanbir Singh wrote:
Farkas Levente wrote:
as i wrote earlier i've got many packages backported from fedora: http://www.lfarkas.org/linux/packages/centos/5/SRPMS/ but none of them really working (there are many kvm bugs on rhel/centos-5 which is not fixed:-()
its a bit academic to have packages if they dont work!
each of them working with _some_ guest but none of them working with all..
thats interesting, is there a table with details somewhere ? eg. What ver works with what guest ?
Karanbir Singh wrote:
Farkas Levente wrote:
Karanbir Singh wrote:
Farkas Levente wrote:
as i wrote earlier i've got many packages backported from fedora: http://www.lfarkas.org/linux/packages/centos/5/SRPMS/ but none of them really working (there are many kvm bugs on rhel/centos-5 which is not fixed:-()
its a bit academic to have packages if they dont work!
each of them working with _some_ guest but none of them working with all..
thats interesting, is there a table with details somewhere ? eg. What ver works with what guest ?
read my mails in kvm list:-) anyway in short or setup at the end. guest: - mandrake-10 can't boot since 72 - centos x86_64 can't boot on 78,79 - fedora-9 can't boot with kernel-2.6.27.x in 77,78,79 - pxe boot not working long ago (at least 69) we currently use userspace from 72 and kmod from 71 this was the last usable combination. at a new release i always try to boot these guests and looking for any new version which will boot all and i immediately stop building new kmods and stay at that version. there was a promise for a new stable version for 2.6.28. imho the bast for wait for that.
- host: - Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz - Intel S3000AHV - 8GB RAM - CentOS-5.2 - kernel-2.6.18-92.1.18.el5 x86_64 64bit - guest-1: - CentOS-5.2 - 4 vcpu - kernel-2.6.18-92.1.18.el5 i386 32bit - guest-2: - CentOS-5.2 - 4 vcpu - kernel-2.6.18-92.1.18.el5 x86_64 64bit - guest-3: - Mandrake-9 - 1 vcpu - kernel-2.4.19.16mdk-1-1mdk 32bit - guest-4: - Mandrake-10 - 1 vcpu - kernel-2.6.14.2-p4-smp 32bit - guest-5: - Windows XP Professional 32bit - 2 vcpu - guest-7: - Fedora-9 - 4 vcpu - kernel-2.6.27.5-37.fc9.i686
For clarification, your statement "we currently use userspace from 72 and kmod from 71" pertains to use with the current centos kernel (2.6.18-92), correct? Also, which version of qemu are you using?
- Michael Schenck
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Farkas Levente lfarkas@lfarkas.org wrote:
Karanbir Singh wrote:
Farkas Levente wrote:
Karanbir Singh wrote:
Farkas Levente wrote:
as i wrote earlier i've got many packages backported from fedora: http://www.lfarkas.org/linux/packages/centos/5/SRPMS/ but none of them really working (there are many kvm bugs on rhel/centos-5 which is not fixed:-()
its a bit academic to have packages if they dont work!
each of them working with _some_ guest but none of them working with all..
thats interesting, is there a table with details somewhere ? eg. What ver works with what guest ?
read my mails in kvm list:-) anyway in short or setup at the end. guest:
- mandrake-10 can't boot since 72
- centos x86_64 can't boot on 78,79
- fedora-9 can't boot with kernel-2.6.27.x in 77,78,79
- pxe boot not working long ago (at least 69)
we currently use userspace from 72 and kmod from 71 this was the last usable combination. at a new release i always try to boot these guests and looking for any new version which will boot all and i immediately stop building new kmods and stay at that version. there was a promise for a new stable version for 2.6.28. imho the bast for wait for that.
- host:
- Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz
- Intel S3000AHV
- 8GB RAM
- CentOS-5.2
- kernel-2.6.18-92.1.18.el5 x86_64 64bit
- guest-1:
- CentOS-5.2 - 4 vcpu
- kernel-2.6.18-92.1.18.el5 i386 32bit
- guest-2:
- CentOS-5.2 - 4 vcpu
- kernel-2.6.18-92.1.18.el5 x86_64 64bit
- guest-3:
- Mandrake-9 - 1 vcpu
- kernel-2.4.19.16mdk-1-1mdk 32bit
- guest-4:
- Mandrake-10 - 1 vcpu
- kernel-2.6.14.2-p4-smp 32bit
- guest-5:
- Windows XP Professional 32bit - 2 vcpu
- guest-7:
- Fedora-9 - 4 vcpu
- kernel-2.6.27.5-37.fc9.i686
-- Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!" _______________________________________________ CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
as you can read bellow we use on the host kernel-2.6.18-92.1.18.el5. qemu is not required for kvm, but we use qemu-img-0.9.1-10
Michael Schenck wrote:
For clarification, your statement "we currently use userspace from 72 and kmod from 71" pertains to use with the current centos kernel (2.6.18-92), correct? Also, which version of qemu are you using?
- Michael Schenck
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Farkas Levente <lfarkas@lfarkas.org mailto:lfarkas@lfarkas.org> wrote:
Karanbir Singh wrote: > Farkas Levente wrote: >> Karanbir Singh wrote: >>> Farkas Levente wrote: >>>> as i wrote earlier i've got many packages backported from fedora: >>>> http://www.lfarkas.org/linux/packages/centos/5/SRPMS/ >>>> but none of them really working (there are many kvm bugs on >>>> rhel/centos-5 which is not fixed:-() >>> its a bit academic to have packages if they dont work! >> >> each of them working with _some_ guest but none of them working with >> all.. >> > > thats interesting, is there a table with details somewhere ? eg. What > ver works with what guest ? read my mails in kvm list:-) anyway in short or setup at the end. guest: - mandrake-10 can't boot since 72 - centos x86_64 can't boot on 78,79 - fedora-9 can't boot with kernel-2.6.27.x in 77,78,79 - pxe boot not working long ago (at least 69) we currently use userspace from 72 and kmod from 71 this was the last usable combination. at a new release i always try to boot these guests and looking for any new version which will boot all and i immediately stop building new kmods and stay at that version. there was a promise for a new stable version for 2.6.28. <http://2.6.28.> imho the bast for wait for that. - host: - Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz - Intel S3000AHV - 8GB RAM - CentOS-5.2 - kernel-2.6.18-92.1.18.el5 x86_64 64bit - guest-1: - CentOS-5.2 - 4 vcpu - kernel-2.6.18-92.1.18.el5 i386 32bit - guest-2: - CentOS-5.2 - 4 vcpu - kernel-2.6.18-92.1.18.el5 x86_64 64bit - guest-3: - Mandrake-9 - 1 vcpu - kernel-2.4.19.16mdk-1-1mdk 32bit - guest-4: - Mandrake-10 - 1 vcpu - kernel-2.6.14.2-p4-smp 32bit - guest-5: - Windows XP Professional 32bit - 2 vcpu - guest-7: - Fedora-9 - 4 vcpu - kernel-2.6.27.5-37.fc9.i686 -- Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!" _______________________________________________ CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org <mailto:CentOS-virt@centos.org> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
What is the advantage of using userspace version 72 when you're using version kmod 71?
I'm too new to this to understand the pro's to mismatched versions
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Farkas Levente lfarkas@lfarkas.org wrote:
as you can read bellow we use on the host kernel-2.6.18-92.1.18.el5. qemu is not required for kvm, but we use qemu-img-0.9.1-10
Michael Schenck wrote:
For clarification, your statement "we currently use userspace from 72 and kmod from 71" pertains to use with the current centos kernel (2.6.18-92), correct? Also, which version of qemu are you using?
- Michael Schenck
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Farkas Levente <lfarkas@lfarkas.org mailto:lfarkas@lfarkas.org> wrote:
Karanbir Singh wrote: > Farkas Levente wrote: >> Karanbir Singh wrote: >>> Farkas Levente wrote: >>>> as i wrote earlier i've got many packages backported fromfedora:
>>>> http://www.lfarkas.org/linux/packages/centos/5/SRPMS/ >>>> but none of them really working (there are many kvm bugs on >>>> rhel/centos-5 which is not fixed:-() >>> its a bit academic to have packages if they dont work! >> >> each of them working with _some_ guest but none of them workingwith
>> all.. >> > > thats interesting, is there a table with details somewhere ? eg.What
> ver works with what guest ? read my mails in kvm list:-) anyway in short or setup at the end. guest: - mandrake-10 can't boot since 72 - centos x86_64 can't boot on 78,79 - fedora-9 can't boot with kernel-2.6.27.x in 77,78,79 - pxe boot not working long ago (at least 69) we currently use userspace from 72 and kmod from 71 this was the last usable combination. at a new release i always try to boot theseguests
and looking for any new version which will boot all and i immediately stop building new kmods and stay at that version. there was a promise for a new stable version for 2.6.28. <http://2.6.28.> imho the bast for wait for that. - host: - Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz - Intel S3000AHV - 8GB RAM - CentOS-5.2 - kernel-2.6.18-92.1.18.el5 x86_64 64bit - guest-1: - CentOS-5.2 - 4 vcpu - kernel-2.6.18-92.1.18.el5 i386 32bit - guest-2: - CentOS-5.2 - 4 vcpu - kernel-2.6.18-92.1.18.el5 x86_64 64bit - guest-3: - Mandrake-9 - 1 vcpu - kernel-2.4.19.16mdk-1-1mdk 32bit - guest-4: - Mandrake-10 - 1 vcpu - kernel-2.6.14.2-p4-smp 32bit - guest-5: - Windows XP Professional 32bit - 2 vcpu - guest-7: - Fedora-9 - 4 vcpu - kernel-2.6.27.5-37.fc9.i686 -- Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!" _______________________________________________ CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org <mailto:CentOS-virt@centos.org> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
-- Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!" _______________________________________________ CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
ok i was wrong, we use userspace 71 and kmod 72. userspace 71 was the last one which boot mandrake-10.
Michael Schenck wrote:
What is the advantage of using userspace version 72 when you're using version kmod 71?
I'm too new to this to understand the pro's to mismatched versions
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Farkas Levente <lfarkas@lfarkas.org mailto:lfarkas@lfarkas.org> wrote:
as you can read bellow we use on the host kernel-2.6.18-92.1.18.el5. qemu is not required for kvm, but we use qemu-img-0.9.1-10 Michael Schenck wrote: > For clarification, your statement "we currently use userspace from 72 > and kmod from 71" pertains to use with the current centos kernel > (2.6.18-92), correct? Also, which version of qemu are you using? > > - Michael Schenck > > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Farkas Levente <lfarkas@lfarkas.org <mailto:lfarkas@lfarkas.org> > <mailto:lfarkas@lfarkas.org <mailto:lfarkas@lfarkas.org>>> wrote: > > Karanbir Singh wrote: > > Farkas Levente wrote: > >> Karanbir Singh wrote: > >>> Farkas Levente wrote: > >>>> as i wrote earlier i've got many packages backported from fedora: > >>>> http://www.lfarkas.org/linux/packages/centos/5/SRPMS/ > >>>> but none of them really working (there are many kvm bugs on > >>>> rhel/centos-5 which is not fixed:-() > >>> its a bit academic to have packages if they dont work! > >> > >> each of them working with _some_ guest but none of them working with > >> all.. > >> > > > > thats interesting, is there a table with details somewhere ? eg. What > > ver works with what guest ? > > read my mails in kvm list:-) > anyway in short or setup at the end. > guest: > - mandrake-10 can't boot since 72 > - centos x86_64 can't boot on 78,79 > - fedora-9 can't boot with kernel-2.6.27.x in 77,78,79 > - pxe boot not working long ago (at least 69) > we currently use userspace from 72 and kmod from 71 this was the last > usable combination. at a new release i always try to boot these guests > and looking for any new version which will boot all and i immediately > stop building new kmods and stay at that version. > there was a promise for a new stable version for 2.6.28. <http://2.6.28.> > <http://2.6.28.> > imho the bast for wait for that. > > - host: > - Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz > - Intel S3000AHV > - 8GB RAM > - CentOS-5.2 > - kernel-2.6.18-92.1.18.el5 x86_64 64bit > - guest-1: > - CentOS-5.2 - 4 vcpu > - kernel-2.6.18-92.1.18.el5 i386 32bit > - guest-2: > - CentOS-5.2 - 4 vcpu > - kernel-2.6.18-92.1.18.el5 x86_64 64bit > - guest-3: > - Mandrake-9 - 1 vcpu > - kernel-2.4.19.16mdk-1-1mdk 32bit > - guest-4: > - Mandrake-10 - 1 vcpu > - kernel-2.6.14.2-p4-smp 32bit > - guest-5: > - Windows XP Professional 32bit - 2 vcpu > - guest-7: > - Fedora-9 - 4 vcpu > - kernel-2.6.27.5-37.fc9.i686 > > -- > Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!" > _______________________________________________ > CentOS-virt mailing list > CentOS-virt@centos.org <mailto:CentOS-virt@centos.org> <mailto:CentOS-virt@centos.org <mailto:CentOS-virt@centos.org>> > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS-virt mailing list > CentOS-virt@centos.org <mailto:CentOS-virt@centos.org> > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt -- Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!" _______________________________________________ CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org <mailto:CentOS-virt@centos.org> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
-
Akemi Yagi -
Farkas Levente -
Karanbir Singh -
Michael Schenck