On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:06:01AM +1100, Norman Gaywood wrote: > On 15 March 2010 10:12, Christopher G. Stach II <cgs at ldsys.net> wrote: > > ----- "Norman Gaywood" <ngaywood at une.edu.au> wrote: > > > >> 64bit multi-vcpu. The guest is quite heavyweight, 30GB of memory and > >> 12vcpu. It's a LTSP server designed to handle lots of graphical logins > >> for computer science students. This, I guess is not a common > >> workload. > > > > I wouldn't say that it's an uncommon workload, or VM configuration, at all. However, it is an uncommon kernel. Is there any reason that you need to use that one? Can/Does it work with something more "approved"? > > LTSP setups are either Fedora or Ubuntu which run about the same > vintage of kernel. > > Thing is that the 2.6.3? kernels that are supposed to work as a Xen PV > guest have been around a long time now. None of them seem to work in > my case. The oldest I tried was 2.6.30. > > Installing say a Centos kernel on fedora does not look to be an > option. Ubuntu seem to have pretty much the same software/kernel as > fedora. It's a lot of work to build sometime like our current setup on > Ubuntu only to discover it probably has the same problem. Note also > this problem was not reproduced in testing until very recently (see > the bugzilla). > > Another way would be to install Fedora/Ubuntu on the bare metal like > we have on older versions of this system. But sigh, I hit a different > bug going that way with "Enterprise Hardware" not supported in modern > kernels. > > So these 2.6.3? kernels are supposed to work as PV guests. And in any > event, it looks like the problem might be in the Xen Hypervisor > anyway. The bugzilla was moved from a Fedora bug the a RH EL bug (not > by me). > Sorry I can't remember if I already asked if you tried upgrading to Xen 3.4.2 from http://gitco.de/repo/ ? -- Pasi