| 1 |
-original message- |
| 2 |
Subject: Re: [gentoo-server] New Gentoo-Wiki Article (draft): Paravirtualizing Gentoo VMs on XenServer |
| 3 |
From: Paul Hartman <paul.hartman@×××××.com> |
| 4 |
Date: 2011-07-26 22:42 |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
>On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 7:47 AM, Pandu Poluan <pandu@××××××.info> wrote: |
| 7 |
>> Hello list! |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> As I've once promised, here's a (draft) of HOWTO run Gentoo VMs |
| 10 |
>> paravirtualized on XenServer |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/User:Pepoluan/Paravirtualized_Gentoo_VMs_on_XenServer |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> Any inputs? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
>Thanks for this, I've got a virtual server using old xen-sources |
| 17 |
>kernel and previous attempts to use vanilla kernel have failed. Now I |
| 18 |
>think I'll try my luck again with kernel 3.0 and your guide to see if |
| 19 |
>I can get it to boot this time... :) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Glad to be of help. Two notes of caution, though: |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
1. I forgot to specify that memory allocation (VMSPLIT) *must* be 3G/1G (3G for userspace, 1G for kernelspace). If not, the VM would mysteriously refuse to start -- without any error messages. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
2. I truly have no idea if my method works for 3.0. It's been tested thoroughlt with 2.6, though (to be precise: 2.6.38 and 2.6.39). I am still hesitant to use 3.0 because I saw people reporting bugs where a program is hard-coded to require kernel==2.6 (instead of requiring kernel>=2.6). IMO, it's not yet safe to tread the 3.0 waters. At least for another month. (As usual, YMMV) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
That said, feel free to point out errors. And if you fail/succeed, please do tell me. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Happy paravirtualizing! :) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Rgds, |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
FdS Pandu E Poluan |
| 35 |
~ IT Optimizer ~ |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Sent from Nokia E72-1 |
Archives