On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 10:37:35PM +0100, Christoph Egger wrote: > > It would be good if HEAD and netbsd-5 didn't diverge too quickly, > > though. > > So you're argumenting for wait a little - point b) from above, right? Yes, please. Thanks, Al
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Christoph Egger wrote: >>> Xen 2 support was only kept in for one reason: >>> NetBSD supports PCI passthrough with Xen 2 but not with Xen 3. >>> >>> The question is: when is the right time to throw away Xen 2 ? >>> >>> Should it be done now or should we wait for >>> a) PCI passthrough with Xen 3 is there >>> b) or netbsd-5 got some testing just in case to make pullups >>> for Xen 2 easier ? I think given that "NetBSD supports PCI passthrough with Xen 2 but not with Xen 3", then option a) must be taken. >> It would be good if HEAD and netbsd-5 didn't diverge too quickly, >> though. > > So you're argumenting for wait a little - point b) from above, right? I don't see why it's a choice between a) _OR_ b) as long as PCI passthrough is pulled up to netbsd-5 -- -- Stephen
Stephen Borrill wrote: > On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Christoph Egger wrote: >>>> Xen 2 support was only kept in for one reason: >>>> NetBSD supports PCI passthrough with Xen 2 but not with Xen 3. >>>> >>>> The question is: when is the right time to throw away Xen 2 ? >>>> >>>> Should it be done now or should we wait for >>>> a) PCI passthrough with Xen 3 is there >>>> b) or netbsd-5 got some testing just in case to make pullups >>>> for Xen 2 easier ? > > I think given that "NetBSD supports PCI passthrough with Xen 2 but not > with Xen 3", then option a) must be taken. Why do you think, -current can't live a short time period w/o any PCI passthrough support? This fact just can give someone a motivation to do the work sooner than later :) >>> It would be good if HEAD and netbsd-5 didn't diverge too quickly, >>> though. >> >> So you're argumenting for wait a little - point b) from above, right? > > I don't see why it's a choice between a) _OR_ b) as long as PCI > passthrough is pulled up to netbsd-5 This pullup can happen anytime to netbsd-5 independent if Xen 2 support has been removed in -current or not.(Continue reading)
Hello all,
NetBSD as dom0, and trying to get netbsd as domU running para
virtualized.
All of this is from the 200811010002Z daily-build.
uname -a
NetBSD xen0.at.home 5.0_BETA NetBSD 5.0_BETA (XEN3_DOM0) #0: Sat Nov
1 00:24:22 PDT 2008 builds <at> wb28:/home/builds/ab/netbsd-5/
amd64/200811010002Z-obj/home/builds/ab/netbsd-5/src/sys/arch/amd64/
compile/XEN3_DOM0 amd64
cat -n dom1
1 #kernel = "/netbsd-INSTALL_XEN3_DOMU"
2 kernel = "/netbsd-XEN3_DOMU"
3 memory = 64
4 name = "dom1"
5 #vcpus = 1
6 #disk = [ 'phy:/dev/wd0e,0x03,w','file:/root/boot.iso,0x04,r' ]
7 disk = [ 'phy:/dev/wd0e,0x03,w','phy:/dev/cd0a,0x04,r' ]
8 vif = [ 'bridge=bridge0' ]
9 root = "/dev/wd0d"
I have already completed the install successfully inside the domU, and
I am attempting to start it for the first time..
# xm create dom1 -c
Using config file "./dom1".
Started domain dom1
(Continue reading)
Looks like you're reproducing the bug described here: http://mail-index.netbsd.org/port-xen/2008/08/20/msg004155.html Christoph B. Cook wrote: > Hello all, > > NetBSD as dom0, and trying to get netbsd as domU running para virtualized. > > All of this is from the 200811010002Z daily-build. > > uname -a > NetBSD xen0.at.home 5.0_BETA NetBSD 5.0_BETA (XEN3_DOM0) #0: Sat Nov 1 > 00:24:22 PDT 2008 > builds <at> wb28:/home/builds/ab/netbsd-5/amd64/200811010002Z-obj/home/builds/ab/netbsd-5/src/sys/arch/amd64/compile/XEN3_DOM0 > amd64 > > > cat -n dom1 > 1 #kernel = "/netbsd-INSTALL_XEN3_DOMU" > 2 kernel = "/netbsd-XEN3_DOMU" > 3 memory = 64 > 4 name = "dom1" > 5 #vcpus = 1 > 6 #disk = [ 'phy:/dev/wd0e,0x03,w','file:/root/boot.iso,0x04,r' ] > 7 disk = [ 'phy:/dev/wd0e,0x03,w','phy:/dev/cd0a,0x04,r' ] > 8 vif = [ 'bridge=bridge0' ](Continue reading)
On 31 Oct 2008, at 15:58, Greg Oster wrote: >> Looks like things have changed since May 2008 when that howto was >> written.. > > Yes, things have... > > Having setup a dom0 on NetBSD/amd64 4.99.73 for the first time > the other night, let me suggest: > a) install 4.99.73 (or, now, 5.0_BETA ;) ) > b) 'man boot.cfg' to see just how easy it is to avoid grub and still > boot xen on amd64!!!! I just did this on a new disk. Installed 5.0_BETA from 3/11 and hacked boot.cfg according to the man-page. It seems that in 5.0beta the manpage is updated with the multiboot stuff, but "multiboot" is an unknown command for boot itself. Is it /boot that I need to update in this situation? I.e. get a new / usr/mdec/boot from 5.99.x? Apart from the inverted documentation issue that is (i.e. a feature that doesn't exist is already documented in 5.0beta)... Johan
>> Yes, things have... >> >> Having setup a dom0 on NetBSD/amd64 4.99.73 for the first time >> the other night, let me suggest: >> a) install 4.99.73 (or, now, 5.0_BETA ;) ) >> >> b) 'man boot.cfg' to see just how easy it is to avoid grub and still >> boot xen on amd64!!!! > > I just did this on a new disk. Installed 5.0_BETA from 3/11 and > hacked boot.cfg according to the man-page. It seems that in 5.0beta > the manpage is updated with the multiboot stuff, but "multiboot" is > an unknown command for boot itself. > > Is it /boot that I need to update in this situation? I.e. get a new / > usr/mdec/boot from 5.99.x? Did this. Works like a charm. Grub is no longer a part of my life. Happiness. Johan
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008, Johan Ihren wrote: >>> Having setup a dom0 on NetBSD/amd64 4.99.73 for the first time >>> the other night, let me suggest: >>> a) install 4.99.73 (or, now, 5.0_BETA ;) ) >>> >>> b) 'man boot.cfg' to see just how easy it is to avoid grub and still >>> boot xen on amd64!!!! >> >> I just did this on a new disk. Installed 5.0_BETA from 3/11 and hacked >> boot.cfg according to the man-page. It seems that in 5.0beta the manpage is >> updated with the multiboot stuff, but "multiboot" is an unknown command for >> boot itself. >> >> Is it /boot that I need to update in this situation? I.e. get a new >> /usr/mdec/boot from 5.99.x? > > Did this. Works like a charm. Grub is no longer a part of my life. Happiness. NetBSD 5.0_BETA definitely includes the multiboot support in /usr/mdec/boot (as it was in 4.99.73). Was your 5.0_BETA self-built or from the NetBSD autobuild cluster? -- -- Stephen
Hi Stephen, >>>> I just did this on a new disk. Installed 5.0_BETA from 3/11 and >>>> hacked boot.cfg according to the man-page. It seems that in >>>> 5.0beta the manpage is updated with the multiboot stuff, but >>>> "multiboot" is an unknown command for boot itself. >>> Is it /boot that I need to update in this situation? I.e. get a >>> new /usr/mdec/boot from 5.99.x? >> >> Did this. Works like a charm. Grub is no longer a part of my life. >> Happiness. > > NetBSD 5.0_BETA definitely includes the multiboot support in /usr/ > mdec/boot (as it was in 4.99.73). > > Was your 5.0_BETA self-built or from the NetBSD autobuild cluster? It's from the autobuild cluster. Looking more carefully I realise that this must be a user error. I prepped the 5.0_BETA disk by attaching it to a machine running 4.99.72 and must have changed directory into the wrong /usr/mdec before doing the installboot things. There is multiboot support in the 5.0_BETA version of /usr/mdec/boot just as you say. Sorry about the noise. Johan(Continue reading)
I tried bringing up a NetBSD 5 Xen2 domU recently, and it crashed before printing anything to the console. Unfortunately, Xen 2 is not giving me any more debugging information than that. The dom0 is NetBSD 4.0. Has anyone else tried this recently? I have this one Xen 2 box because we're using PCI passthrough on one of our domUs. Thanks. -- - Brian
RSS Feed6 | |
|---|---|
30 | |
5 | |
26 | |
2 | |
66 | |
65 | |
74 | |
1 | |
95 | |
25 | |
57 | |
154 | |
26 | |
4 | |
11 | |
76 | |
43 | |
17 | |
7 | |
29 | |
83 | |
66 | |
23 | |
71 | |
77 | |
114 | |
90 | |
26 | |
38 | |
27 | |
44 | |
35 | |
64 | |
18 | |
48 | |
86 | |
53 | |
34 | |
132 | |
56 | |
65 | |
44 | |
43 | |
108 | |
67 | |
124 | |
73 | |
115 | |
100 | |
52 | |
72 | |
70 | |
110 | |
26 | |
86 | |
119 | |
120 | |
222 | |
71 | |
131 | |
200 | |
114 | |
120 | |
174 | |
191 | |
38 | |
84 | |
48 | |
98 | |
65 | |
47 | |
145 | |
55 | |
100 | |
78 | |
62 | |
100 | |
72 | |
139 | |
114 | |
96 | |
34 | |
127 | |
41 | |
88 | |
96 | |
205 | |
17 | |
107 | |
47 | |
65 | |
47 | |
36 | |
46 | |
23 | |
75 | |
88 | |
169 | |
164 | |
25 | |
6 | |
104 | |
1 | |
5 | |
1 | |
1 | |
1 | |
38 | |
34 |
