8:37 a.m.
Hello
I'm currently testing xen for internal failover usage.
I would like to ask if there is a package with the kernel-2.4.2xenU
available on fedora 4 and if its possible to run kernel-2.4xenU kernels
on a kernel 2.6 dom0 system?
Roland Kaeser
9:40 a.m.
On 31 Mar 2005, at 16:37, Roland Käser wrote:
Hello
I'm currently testing xen for internal failover usage.
I would like to ask if there is a package with the kernel-2.4.2xenU
available on fedora 4 and if its possible to run kernel-2.4xenU
kernels on a kernel 2.6 dom0 system?
AFAIK, there is no kernel-2.4.2-xenU package available right now,
neither in RawHide nor in Fedora Core 4 test 1 (2.4.2 is a very ancient
kernel). However, you should be able to grab Xen sources from
xen.sf.net and compile a 2.4 kernel yourself. Also, I think running a
guest 2.4-xenU guest inside a 2.6-dom0 is a perfectly valid scenario.
1:10 p.m.
Hello
No, what I ment, is that the xen distro from camebridge brings patches
for kernel 2.9.10xenU and 2.4.29xenU. Shouldn't these are be part of
FC4? Not only the 2.6 kernels.
In many cases there are complex installations on Redhat 8 or 9 which
should be integratedable into a server consolidation.
Roland
Felipe Alfaro Solana schrieb:
On 31 Mar 2005, at 16:37, Roland Käser wrote:
> Hello
>
> I'm currently testing xen for internal failover usage.
> I would like to ask if there is a package with the kernel-2.4.2xenU
> available on fedora 4 and if its possible to run kernel-2.4xenU
> kernels on a kernel 2.6 dom0 system?
AFAIK, there is no kernel-2.4.2-xenU package available right now,
neither in RawHide nor in Fedora Core 4 test 1 (2.4.2 is a very
ancient kernel). However, you should be able to grab Xen sources from
xen.sf.net and compile a 2.4 kernel yourself. Also, I think running a
guest 2.4-xenU guest inside a 2.6-dom0 is a perfectly valid scenario.
1:11 p.m.
On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 21:10 +0200, Roland Käser wrote:
Hello
No, what I ment, is that the xen distro from camebridge brings patches
for kernel 2.9.10xenU and 2.4.29xenU. Shouldn't these are be part of
FC4? Not only the 2.6 kernels.
In many cases there are complex installations on Redhat 8 or 9 which
should be integratedable into a server consolidation.
Hmm, I hadn't thought of that. But as desirable as that sounds, I
strongly suspect that this would increase the complexity of kernel
building and maintenance for FC4 and beyond. If there's much demand for
it, it could be picked up by one of the alternative repositories (some
of them, if I'm not mistaken, collectively known as rpmforge, now).
--
-Paul Iadonisi
Senior System Administrator
Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
Ever see a penguin fly? -- Try Linux.
GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets
1:20 p.m.
Hello
this would increase the complexity of kernel
building and maintenance for FC4 and beyond.
Why? Its just an other rpm packages which provides the kernel 2.4.29. The xen distro
contributes the packages for it. Just a new spec and a new srpm. Should take (I'm not
yet a specialist for building rpms for xen) around a half hour to create the package.
Roland
Paul Iadonisi schrieb:
On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 21:10 +0200, Roland Käser wrote:
>Hello
>
>No, what I ment, is that the xen distro from camebridge brings patches
>for kernel 2.9.10xenU and 2.4.29xenU. Shouldn't these are be part of
>FC4? Not only the 2.6 kernels.
>In many cases there are complex installations on Redhat 8 or 9 which
>should be integratedable into a server consolidation.
>
>
Hmm, I hadn't thought of that. But as desirable as that sounds, I
strongly suspect that this would increase the complexity of kernel
building and maintenance for FC4 and beyond. If there's much demand for
it, it could be picked up by one of the alternative repositories (some
of them, if I'm not mistaken, collectively known as rpmforge, now).
1:33 p.m.
On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 21:20 +0200, Roland Käser wrote:
Hello
> this would increase the complexity of kernel
> building and maintenance for FC4 and beyond.
Why? Its just an other rpm packages which provides the kernel 2.4.29.
The xen distro contributes the packages for it. Just a new spec and a
new srpm. Should take (I'm not yet a specialist for building rpms for
xen) around a half hour to create the package.
Just another rpm? You can't be serious. We're talking another
kernel, here. Let's ask Dave Jones (whom I believe is the current
kernel rpm maintainer) how much he fancies maintaining multiple kernel
rpms per release of Fedora Core and/or Red Hat Enterprise Linux that is
different than upstream and that has to be kept up to date security-
wise. (If you think it would only be for one release, you would only
need to wait to witness the endless threads from hell about why Red Hat
should not drop 2.4 xen rpms from Fedora Core 13 / Red Hat Enterprise
Linux 9.)
Add to that the necessity to test various combinations of xen0 <->
xenU kernels once you start mixing 2.4/2.6 kernels. Not that it can't
be done, just keep in perspective the magnitude of the work. Any
volunteers?
1:45 p.m.
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 02:33:12PM -0500, Paul Iadonisi wrote:
On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 21:20 +0200, Roland Käser wrote:
> Hello
>
> > this would increase the complexity of kernel
> > building and maintenance for FC4 and beyond.
>
> Why? Its just an other rpm packages which provides the kernel 2.4.29.
> The xen distro contributes the packages for it. Just a new spec and a
> new srpm. Should take (I'm not yet a specialist for building rpms for
> xen) around a half hour to create the package.
Just another rpm? You can't be serious. We're talking another
kernel, here. Let's ask Dave Jones (whom I believe is the current
kernel rpm maintainer) how much he fancies maintaining multiple kernel
rpms per release of Fedora Core and/or Red Hat Enterprise Linux that is
different than upstream and that has to be kept up to date security-
wise.
I don't see any particular benefit offered by running a 2.4 kernel
in a 2.6 Xen host. If 2.6 doesn't do something for you that 2.4 does,
that needs fixing. 2.4 is a dead end wrt new development. I'm surprised
to hear the Xen folks still support it.
I have no plans whatsoever to build another 2.4 kernel for Fedora,
so unless some loony decides to take this on as a fedora-extras
project (and there are so many more worthwhile projects that could
be done imo), it won't happen.
Dave
1:56 p.m.
Hello
I don't see any particular benefit offered by running a 2.4 kernel
in
a 2.6 Xen host.
Have You ever tried to install a Oracle 9 on "modern" fedora release? I
can sing some songs about this crap. (The oracle not the Fedora).
So if we need to run the oracle servers as xen instance we NEED to have
a redhat 9 for sample. And some other applications servers (special in
the enterprise computing area) are not ready for the kernel 2.6, the
new threading library changes or the new glibc or its failed in case of
other library parts which are to new on fedora releases.
By the way: If there is a useful howto to compile xen and xenU, xen0
kernels and also a test protocol for testing this kernels for the live
fedora release I would like to try to maintain the 2.4xenU kernel for
fedora.
Roland
Dave Jones schrieb:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 02:33:12PM -0500, Paul Iadonisi wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 21:20 +0200, Roland Käser wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > > this would increase the complexity of kernel
> > > building and maintenance for FC4 and beyond.
> >
> > Why? Its just an other rpm packages which provides the kernel 2.4.29.
> > The xen distro contributes the packages for it. Just a new spec and a
> > new srpm. Should take (I'm not yet a specialist for building rpms for
> > xen) around a half hour to create the package.
>
> Just another rpm? You can't be serious. We're talking another
> kernel, here. Let's ask Dave Jones (whom I believe is the current
> kernel rpm maintainer) how much he fancies maintaining multiple kernel
> rpms per release of Fedora Core and/or Red Hat Enterprise Linux that is
> different than upstream and that has to be kept up to date security-
> wise.
I don't see any particular benefit offered by running a 2.4 kernel
in a 2.6 Xen host. If 2.6 doesn't do something for you that 2.4 does,
that needs fixing. 2.4 is a dead end wrt new development. I'm surprised
to hear the Xen folks still support it.
I have no plans whatsoever to build another 2.4 kernel for Fedora,
so unless some loony decides to take this on as a fedora-extras
project (and there are so many more worthwhile projects that could
be done imo), it won't happen.
Dave
7:18 a.m.
On Friday 01 April 2005 05:56, Roland Käser <roli(a)israel-jugendtag.ch> wrote:
>I don't see any particular benefit offered by running a 2.4
kernel in
a 2.6 Xen host.
Have You ever tried to install a Oracle 9 on "modern" fedora release? I
can sing some songs about this crap. (The oracle not the Fedora).
Why would you want to run Oracle on Fedora? RHEL costs much less than Oracle
and will make things much easier for you.
You might ask whether a RHEL3 update for Xen will be released (RHEL3 was 2.4
based while RHEL4 is 2.6 based). But it's not a question for this list.
--
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
12:34 p.m.
Le lundi 18 avril 2005 à 22:18 +1000, Russell Coker a écrit :
On Friday 01 April 2005 05:56, Roland Käser
<roli(a)israel-jugendtag.ch> wrote:
> >I don't see any particular benefit offered by running a 2.4 kernel in
>
> a 2.6 Xen host.
> Have You ever tried to install a Oracle 9 on "modern" fedora release? I
> can sing some songs about this crap. (The oracle not the Fedora).
Why would you want to run Oracle on Fedora? RHEL costs much less than Oracle
and will make things much easier for you.
You might ask whether a RHEL3 update for Xen will be released (RHEL3 was 2.4
based while RHEL4 is 2.6 based). But it's not a question for this list.
If you are a dev shop building apps on top of Oracle (apps that will
then be sold to wealthy corporations that will shell $$$$ for Oracle
licenses) Oracle will let you install as many Oracle setups as you like
(they realise this helps selling their products)
If you want to host these free developer instances on RHEL Red Hat will
enforce through up2date a full license per dev/test system.
When the hardware is liberated intel/amd, Oracle is free, a RHEL license
is not something taken lightly. Especially if you try to optimise
hardware occupation by having multiple separate system images (one for
every Oracle version you want to support, for example) and RHN wants to
charge you one license per system image (even though they are all on the
same physical hardware and can not be run separately)
Now since you can't run RHEL, you will run FC or Centos or whatever. But
once you've qualified your product on this other Linux version, how long
do you think it will take some beancounter to realise you can sell your
product on this other Linux system, and avoid paying RH altogether ?
(remember, less $$$ for RH = more customer $$$ available for your part
of the system)
--
Nicolas Mailhot
12:59 p.m.
On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 19:34 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le lundi 18 avril 2005 à 22:18 +1000, Russell Coker a écrit :
> On Friday 01 April 2005 05:56, Roland Käser <roli(a)israel-jugendtag.ch> wrote:
> > >I don't see any particular benefit offered by running a 2.4 kernel in
> >
> > a 2.6 Xen host.
> > Have You ever tried to install a Oracle 9 on "modern" fedora release?
I
> > can sing some songs about this crap. (The oracle not the Fedora).
>
> Why would you want to run Oracle on Fedora? RHEL costs much less than Oracle
> and will make things much easier for you.
>
> You might ask whether a RHEL3 update for Xen will be released (RHEL3 was 2.4
> based while RHEL4 is 2.6 based). But it's not a question for this list.
If you are a dev shop building apps on top of Oracle (apps that will
then be sold to wealthy corporations that will shell $$$$ for Oracle
licenses) Oracle will let you install as many Oracle setups as you like
(they realise this helps selling their products)
If you want to host these free developer instances on RHEL Red Hat will
enforce through up2date a full license per dev/test system.
which is why you join the RH developers program.... ;)
please take rhel rants to a rhel mailinglist.
1:54 p.m.
Le mardi 19 avril 2005 à 19:59 +0200, Arjan van de Ven a écrit :
On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 19:34 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le lundi 18 avril 2005 à 22:18 +1000, Russell Coker a écrit :
> > On Friday 01 April 2005 05:56, Roland Käser <roli(a)israel-jugendtag.ch>
wrote:
> > > >I don't see any particular benefit offered by running a 2.4
kernel in
> > >
> > > a 2.6 Xen host.
> > > Have You ever tried to install a Oracle 9 on "modern" fedora
release? I
> > > can sing some songs about this crap. (The oracle not the Fedora).
> >
> > Why would you want to run Oracle on Fedora? RHEL costs much less than Oracle
> > and will make things much easier for you.
> >
> > You might ask whether a RHEL3 update for Xen will be released (RHEL3 was 2.4
> > based while RHEL4 is 2.6 based). But it's not a question for this list.
>
> If you are a dev shop building apps on top of Oracle (apps that will
> then be sold to wealthy corporations that will shell $$$$ for Oracle
> licenses) Oracle will let you install as many Oracle setups as you like
> (they realise this helps selling their products)
>
> If you want to host these free developer instances on RHEL Red Hat will
> enforce through up2date a full license per dev/test system.
which is why you join the RH developers program.... ;)
please take rhel rants to a rhel mailinglist.
I'm only reporting what RH people told me about a year ago (you shall
shell out a license per system you use to help RH sell its stuff). If RH
has come to its senses since so much for the better. But last time I
looked you had lots of reasons to try to run Oracle on something other
than RHEL
--
Nicolas Mailhot
11:34 p.m.
On Wednesday 20 April 2005 03:34, Nicolas Mailhot
<Nicolas.Mailhot(a)laposte.net> wrote:
If you are a dev shop building apps on top of Oracle (apps that will
then be sold to wealthy corporations that will shell $$$$ for Oracle
licenses) Oracle will let you install as many Oracle setups as you like
(they realise this helps selling their products)
If you want to host these free developer instances on RHEL Red Hat will
enforce through up2date a full license per dev/test system.
http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/compare/server/
$349 list price for ES basic edition doesn't sound too expensive really.
If you have a large number of machines then the thing to do is to call sales
and get a quote, there are bulk discounts.
Especially if you try to optimise
hardware occupation by having multiple separate system images (one for
every Oracle version you want to support, for example) and RHN wants to
charge you one license per system image (even though they are all on the
same physical hardware and can not be run separately)
Fair point. Have you spoken to sales about this?
Now since you can't run RHEL, you will run FC or Centos or
whatever. But
once you've qualified your product on this other Linux version, how long
do you think it will take some beancounter to realise you can sell your
product on this other Linux system, and avoid paying RH altogether ?
(remember, less $$$ for RH = more customer $$$ available for your part
of the system)
Selling Oracle on Fedora or Centos is not an option. Oracle doesn't support
them, so anyone who pays for Oracle will want to pay for RHEL.
--
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
1:36 a.m.
Le mercredi 20 avril 2005 à 14:34 +1000, Russell Coker a écrit :
On Wednesday 20 April 2005 03:34, Nicolas Mailhot
<Nicolas.Mailhot(a)laposte.net> wrote:
...
> Especially if you try to optimise
> hardware occupation by having multiple separate system images (one for
> every Oracle version you want to support, for example) and RHN wants to
> charge you one license per system image (even though they are all on the
> same physical hardware and can not be run separately)
Fair point. Have you spoken to sales about this?
It was sales answer at the time.
> Now since you can't run RHEL, you will run FC or Centos or
whatever. But
> once you've qualified your product on this other Linux version, how long
> do you think it will take some beancounter to realise you can sell your
> product on this other Linux system, and avoid paying RH altogether ?
> (remember, less $$$ for RH = more customer $$$ available for your part
> of the system)
Selling Oracle on Fedora or Centos is not an option. Oracle doesn't support
them, so anyone who pays for Oracle will want to pay for RHEL.
Any dba worth its salt will tell you Oracle support is only a promise to
look at problems, and since problems are often workload dependent it's
no substitute to testing yourself your workload on realistic systems (ie
as close to production systems hardware/software wise as you can make
them). This is why big corps freeze OS/Oracle versions and test them
themselves.
Now once you've beaten a system to death and verified Oracle likes your
CentOS/FC kernel/glibc versions (because they were the only ones you
could afford on test benches) the prospect of dropping it on an unknown
RHEL system can be more frightening than dispensing with Oracle support
(especially when it can be worked around with by having one RHEL system
somewhere, reproducing the bugs you can not cope with yourself here, and
then report them)
But since Arjan says RH got a dev program now I guess the problem is
partly solved (I hope he didn't think about the one where you have to
commit on supporting your app on a given RHEL version for five years -
for custom business apps that are evolving at a fast pace there is no
way anyone will sign on such a program).
--
Nicolas Mailhot
1:40 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Dave Jones <davej(a)redhat.com> wrote:
I don't see any particular benefit offered by running a 2.4 kernel
in a
2.6 Xen host. If 2.6 doesn't do something for you that 2.4 does, that
needs fixing.
Not particularly in Fedora, but for RHEL there is a definite use for running
RHAS 2.1 and RHEL 3 on a newer (kernel 2.6-based) RHEL release. Oracle 9i
seems to really like RHAS 2.1, running on RHEL 3.0 requiring compat stuff, and
nevermind getting it to run on RHEL 4.
Not that I'd necessarily claim it's worth the effort to maintain, but for the
18 month life / 5 year support lifecycle of RHEL, providing such a Xen-based
migration path would have some utility.
Particularly if Xen 3.0 ends up supporting live-migration and evacuation of
VMs across clustered nodes.
- --
Everytime I write a rhyme these people thinks its a crime
I tell `em what's on my mind. I guess I'm a CRIMINAL!
I don't gotta say a word I just flip `em the bird and keep goin,
I don't take shit from no one. I'm a CRIMINAL!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP SDK 3.2.2
iQA/AwUBQlDhY6PyPrIkdfXsEQItSACeKbz5ek2C3u2vpXhWTGRJORcANzkAoISQ
hYXlEhW4wjyfqV11HVvRp1yW
=mkCX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
6939
days inactive
6959
days old
14 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Arjan van de Ven -
Dave Jones -
Felipe Alfaro Solana -
Nicolas Mailhot -
Paul Iadonisi -
Roland Käser -
Russell Coker -
Terje Bless