headers
Mike Lee | 1 Mar 05:43
Picon

Using multiple logical volumes for partitions in domUs

Hello Everyone,

  I am trying setup a guest domain config file to use multiple logical volumes as the installation partitions for the guest domain.  The guest OS boots from a CentOS 4.4 iso image.  However if I try and specify the physical device in the config file as partitions instead of hard drive devices, the CentOS installer says it does not detect any hard drives.  Below is how I would like it to function and have seen many configs with the same, however the below config does not work:

disk = [ 'phy:/dev/VolGroup1/boot,hda1,w',
'phy:/dev/VolGroup1/swap,hda2,w'
'phy:/dev/VolGroup1/root,hda3,w'
'phy:/dev/VolGroup1/data,hda4,w'
'file:/home/mike/Desktop/CentOS- 4.4-x86_64-binDVD.iso,hdc:cdrom,r' ]

     If I specify the disk for the guest domain as disk = [ 'phy:/dev/VolGroup1/boot,hda,w,...... ] and remove the other phy: listings, then the guest domain boots and finds a hard drive.  However, since I am using logical volumes, my goal is to have the boot, swap, root, etc... partitions on their own logical volumes.  Therefore, I can resize the volumes and the volume's partition when needed.  Exporting just one volume as the entire disk for the guest domain and then having the guest OS create the boot, swap, and root partitions within the volume defeats the purpose of being able to expand for future needs.
     Am I totally missing something here?  I am using Xen 3.0.4 community edition on an x86_64 Dell server. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks in advance.

Mike Lee

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users <at> lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Jan Albrecht | 1 Mar 06:15
Picon

Re: a new server for Xen

xin wrote:
> Thanks for that. What about a VT-supported cpu to do the para-virtualization
> instead of full-virtualization? which one is better.
I've AMD PV and Intel VT here and from my point of view the VT are much
better (and that's no matter if they're AMD, Intel or from Mars...),
because you can install an OS "out-of-box" to that server.
With PV you're limited to Linux and to special kernels.  And the
arguments Mats brought up may be right, but as long as you do normal
daily business on such a server (file-server, webserver, etc...) at VT
machine would always be the better choice.

Jan
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Jan Albrecht | 1 Mar 06:17
Picon

Re: Any largeish deployments of Xen? References?

Kraska, Joe A (US SSA) wrote:
> BTW, your customers are right to be cautious about "data center
> readiness"
> of Xen in immediate time frames. The software is still a baking cake
Agreed. XEN isn't ready for stable production. If you've to care about
high availiability or guaranteed uptimes XEN shouldn't be you tool.

Jan
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Jerry Amundson | 1 Mar 07:54
Picon

Re: Rosetta stone of package names?

On 2/27/07, Tim Post <tim.post <at> netkinetics.net> wrote:
> Hello to all.
>
> This is (sort) of off topic. I'm looking for some kind of table that
> correlates Debian -> Fedora -> CentOS package names (or more). To
> compound that I'm looking for something relatively current.

whohas might be capable, sort of...
http://www.philippwesche.org/2004/programs/whohas/intro.html

Sliding further off-topic, I'm constantly amazed at pages I come
across by accident on wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Linux_distributions

jerry

--

-- 
"Oh joy! Rapture! I've got a brain"
-Scarecrow
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
postmaster/info | 1 Mar 08:31
Picon

RE: Using multiple logical volumes for partitions in domUs

Hello Mike,

 

Dunno if you missed something, a solution would be to install CentOS on a partition without the swap drives and such. After which you can copy the contents of your freshly installed system to its target volume. Don’t forget about the minimal needed /dev partition in that case, see the wiki for what you need minimal. Changing the fstab file should be enough after that.

An other option is to use the rpm option to specify a root dir for installing. Which gives you the option to install the base group and some other packages you need for your setup, create the dev files and boot the system.

 

Greetings,

 

Sjoerd de Heer

S&R Solutions

 

Van: xen-users-bounces <at> lists.xensource.com [mailto:xen-users-bounces <at> lists.xensource.com] Namens Mike Lee
Verzonden: donderdag 1 maart 2007 5:43
Aan: xen-users <at> lists.xensource.com
Onderwerp: [Xen-users] Using multiple logical volumes for partitions in domUs

 

Hello Everyone,

  I am trying setup a guest domain config file to use multiple logical volumes as the installation partitions for the guest domain.  The guest OS boots from a CentOS 4.4 iso image.  However if I try and specify the physical device in the config file as partitions instead of hard drive devices, the CentOS installer says it does not detect any hard drives.  Below is how I would like it to function and have seen many configs with the same, however the below config does not work:

disk = [ 'phy:/dev/VolGroup1/boot,hda1,w',
'phy:/dev/VolGroup1/swap,hda2,w'
'phy:/dev/VolGroup1/root,hda3,w'
'phy:/dev/VolGroup1/data,hda4,w'
'file:/home/mike/Desktop/CentOS- 4.4-x86_64-binDVD.iso,hdc:cdrom,r' ]

     If I specify the disk for the guest domain as disk = [ 'phy:/dev/VolGroup1/boot,hda,w,...... ] and remove the other phy: listings, then the guest domain boots and finds a hard drive.  However, since I am using logical volumes, my goal is to have the boot, swap, root, etc... partitions on their own logical volumes.  Therefore, I can resize the volumes and the volume's partition when needed.  Exporting just one volume as the entire disk for the guest domain and then having the guest OS create the boot, swap, and root partitions within the volume defeats the purpose of being able to expand for future needs.
     Am I totally missing something here?  I am using Xen 3.0.4 community edition on an x86_64 Dell server. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks in advance.

Mike Lee

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users <at> lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ulrich Windl | 1 Mar 09:01
Picon

Re: Using multiple logical volumes for partitions in domUs

On 28 Feb 2007 at 21:43, Mike Lee wrote:

> Hello Everyone,
> 
>   I am trying setup a guest domain config file to use multiple logical
> volumes as the installation partitions for the guest domain.  The guest OS
> boots from a CentOS 4.4 iso image.  However if I try and specify the
> physical device in the config file as partitions instead of hard drive
> devices, the CentOS installer says it does not detect any hard drives.

Same for SLES10. The solution was to install on a single simple image, then 
shutdown, mount the LVs in Dom0, and copy the simple image's files to the 
corresponding mounted LVs, do some adjustments like "mkinitrd in a chroot 
environment", then the VM would start.

The problem may be that you have had? partitions, but no hda "disk".

Ulrich

> Below is how I would like it to function and have seen many configs with the
> same, however the below config does not work:
> 
> disk = [ 'phy:/dev/VolGroup1/boot,hda1,w',
> 'phy:/dev/VolGroup1/swap,hda2,w'
> 'phy:/dev/VolGroup1/root,hda3,w'
> 'phy:/dev/VolGroup1/data,hda4,w'
> 'file:/home/mike/Desktop/CentOS-4.4-x86_64-binDVD.iso,hdc:cdrom,r' ]
> 
>      If I specify the disk for the guest domain as disk = [
> 'phy:/dev/VolGroup1/boot,hda,w,...... ] and remove the other phy: listings,
> then the guest domain boots and finds a hard drive.  However, since I am
> using logical volumes, my goal is to have the boot, swap, root, etc...
> partitions on their own logical volumes.  Therefore, I can resize the
> volumes and the volume's partition when needed.  Exporting just one volume
> as the entire disk for the guest domain and then having the guest OS create
> the boot, swap, and root partitions within the volume defeats the purpose of
> being able to expand for future needs.
>      Am I totally missing something here?  I am using Xen 3.0.4 community
> edition on an x86_64 Dell server. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Mike Lee
>
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Peter Braun | 1 Mar 09:04
Picon
Gravatar

Using custom domU kernels with Fedora,Debian,SUSE

Hello

I would like to ask people here who is using xen in production/hosting
enviroment.

Have you ever experienced problems with para-virtualized guest while
using non-distribution kernels?

Current official xen kernel is 2.6.16. I have self compiled kernel for
domU - non-privileged.

Am using this kernel for wide range of guests like
fedora,debian,gentoo,opensuse without problems. Have you ever
experienced problems while using non distribution kernel in some
distribution?

I tried to use fedora distribution xen guest kernel and its working but its fc5.
There is no available 2.6.16 based xen kernel for fc6.

According to fedora xen kernels - since fc5 - there arent separete xen
kernels for dom0 and domUs?

BR

Peter Braun
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
sebastien.emeriau | 1 Mar 10:22
Picon
Favicon

Re: Using multiple logical volumes for partitions in domUs

hi,

is it normal that you don't have comma after each physical declaration block ?

seb

> > Below is how I would like it to function and have seen many configs with
> the
> > same, however the below config does not work:
> >
> > disk = [ 'phy:/dev/VolGroup1/boot,hda1,w',
> > 'phy:/dev/VolGroup1/swap,hda2,w'
> > 'phy:/dev/VolGroup1/root,hda3,w'
> > 'phy:/dev/VolGroup1/data,hda4,w'
> > 'file:/home/mike/Desktop/CentOS-4.4-x86_64-binDVD.iso,hdc:cdrom,r' ]
> >
> >      If I specify the disk for the guest domain as disk = [
> > 'phy:/dev/VolGroup1/boot,hda,w,...... ] and remove the other phy: listings,
> > then the guest domain boots and finds a hard drive.  However, since I am
> > using logical volumes, my goal is to have the boot, swap, root, etc...
> > partitions on their own logical volumes.  Therefore, I can resize the
> > volumes and the volume's partition when needed.  Exporting just one volume
> > as the entire disk for the guest domain and then having the guest OS create
> > the boot, swap, and root partitions within the volume defeats the purpose
> of
> > being able to expand for future needs.
> >      Am I totally missing something here?  I am using Xen 3.0.4 community
> > edition on an x86_64 Dell server. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> > Mike Lee
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users <at> lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Petersson, Mats | 1 Mar 10:57
Picon

RE: [Xen-users] Win Xp 64 bit install

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xen-users-bounces <at> lists.xensource.com 
> [mailto:xen-users-bounces <at> lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of 
> Abhishek Gaurav
> Sent: 28 February 2007 22:46
> To: Xen-users <at> lists.xensource.com; fedora-xen <at> redhat.com
> Subject: [Xen-users] Win Xp 64 bit install
> 
> Hi,
> I am trying to install windows xp 64 bit (trial version) using 
> virt-install on a fc6 system. The installation seems to stall 
> when the 
> message in the vnc console says "Setup is starting windows".
> 
> The xm dmesg shows:
> 
> (XEN) (GUEST: 13) Booting from CD-Rom...
> (XEN) (GUEST: 13) unsupported PCI BIOS function 0x0E
> (XEN) (GUEST: 13) int13_harddisk: function 15, unmapped 
> device for ELDL=81
> (XEN) (GUEST: 13) *** int 15h function AX=E980, BX=00F2 not 
> yet supported!
> (XEN) (GUEST: 13) *** int 15h function AX=EC00, BX=0002 not 
> yet supported!
> (XEN) Trying to set reserved bit in EFER: 4d01

What version of Xen is this? ("xm info" should give version number at
least). 

Setting FFXSR (0x4000) is probably not "permitted", which also gives me
the indication that this is a AMD platform. Although, I guess setting
that bit shouldn't actually cause a problem as such. 

It's much more likely that the problem is that you're using pre-3.0.4
version of Xen. Try 3.0.4-1. 

> 
> The last message "Trying to set ... " actually comes up just 
> before it 
> stalls.
> 
> What might be causing this ?
> 
> I have also tried to install an older Win Xp home sp1, which actually 
> goes past the above messages (without "trying to set ...") 
> but ends up 
> in the famous black screen upon first reboot.

Probably same problem as above, try later version of Xen. The error
message about setting FFXSR isn't going to happen on a 32-bit Widnows,
as the 32-bit version of Windows doesn't use FXSAVE/FXRESTORE in kernel
mode anyways (unless the code specifically asks - but that's relatively
rare, so the saving by doing the "fast" version is minimal). 

--
Mats
> 
> It'll be great to know what might be causing the above problems.
> 
> Thanks,
> Abhishek.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users <at> lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> 
> 
>
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Petersson, Mats | 1 Mar 10:59
Picon

RE: a new server for Xen


> -----Original Message-----
> From: xen-users-bounces <at> lists.xensource.com 
> [mailto:xen-users-bounces <at> lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of 
> Jan Albrecht
> Sent: 01 March 2007 05:16
> To: xin
> Cc: xen-users <at> lists.xensource.com
> Subject: Re: [Xen-users] a new server for Xen
> 
> xin wrote:
> > Thanks for that. What about a VT-supported cpu to do the 
> para-virtualization
> > instead of full-virtualization? which one is better.
> I've AMD PV and Intel VT here and from my point of view the 
> VT are much
> better (and that's no matter if they're AMD, Intel or from Mars...),
> because you can install an OS "out-of-box" to that server.
> With PV you're limited to Linux and to special kernels.  And the
> arguments Mats brought up may be right, but as long as you do normal
> daily business on such a server (file-server, webserver, etc...) at VT
> machine would always be the better choice.

Sure, with VT (in my view obviously preferrably from AMD ;-) ) you have
ALL the possibilites, rather than just half of them. I should have said
so in my post. 

--
Mats
> 
> Jan
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users <at> lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> 
> 
>
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |

Gmane