On Feb 25, 2011, at 5:48 AM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote: > On 02/24/2011 10:47 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: >> On 2/24/11 8:56 PM, Scott Robbins wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 03:44:32PM +1300, Machin, Greg wrote: >>> >>> >>> <snip of good information> >>> >>>> Rather use ESXi 4.1 and get >>>> up and running quickly. If your hardware is not on the supported list >>>> there are other lists of tested hardware where people have it running on >>>> "Unsupported" hardware. >>>> >>>> Player is not a solution if the Virtual machine needs to be running >>>> 24/7. It's more suited to testing and demo use. >>> >>> Agreed--I haven't really found server, however, to be all that great for >>> 24/7, so I assumed (and we know what happens when one assumes), that it >>> was being used for testing. For any sort of production use, ESXi 4.1 is >>> quite good. >> >> Player isn't good for most of my usage because most of the time I don't want the >> console display at all - I just connect to the guests remotely with >> freenx/ssh/vnc when necessary. And I have Server 1.x setups that have run for >> years with no attention or downtime. I agree that ESXi is better, but it wasn't >> free when I built the VMs and I'm running some native Centos stuff on the host >> along with several guests. >> >> Anyway, my point was that the fabled library ABI stability of RHEL turned out >> not to work for VMware Server 2.0. But CentOS did come through with >> bug-for-bug compatibility as promised, causing the same crashing behavior after >> the same minor-rev update. >> > > The ABI is not for things like VMWare when they screw up their updates > ... it is for custom 3rd party software that you have spent > $1,000,000.00 having developed that will stop working when the ABI changes. > > In the case of VMWare, they support RHEL, Fedora, Ubuntu, SuSE, etc. out > of the box and they made a mistake with their RH compile. > > #1 is a far bigger issue than #2. Also, VMware could have made their module load across kernel updates without recompile if they had set their kernel module up to support KABI (kernel ABI) tracking, but they didn't. -Ross