[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-API] Guest Utilities - HVM vs PV mode

  • To: xen-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • From: George Shuklin <george.shuklin@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 08:00:29 +0400
  • Delivery-date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 04:00:47 +0000
  • List-id: User and development list for XCP and XAPI <xen-api.lists.xen.org>

On 11.02.2013 23:30, Alexandre Kouznetsov wrote:
Hello, George.

El 15/01/13 01:38, George Shuklin escribiÃ:
xe vm-list uuid=... params=HVM-boot-policy, if not empty, HVM mode, if
empty - PV mode.
Well, that seems a good criteria, but there is something still unclear to me.

I have deployed a Debian 6.0 64-bit machine on a XCP 1.6. Judging by HVM-boot-policy parameter (empty) and PV-bootloader (pygrub) it's running in PV mode. It boots Squeeze's default kernel, 2.6.32-5-amd64 (not 2.6.32-5-xen-amd64).

But, my VM's dmesg output mentions Xen, including this specific reference:
[    0.000000] Booting paravirtualized kernel on Xen
[    0.000000] Xen version: 4.1.3 (preserve-AD)

How so?
Does Squeeze's linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64 already includes Xen PV support? I believed it was included since v3.0. I'm quite sure it's the same stock kernel image, I has the same MD5 hash as a regular Debian 6.0 64-bit installation I have around.

(BTW, didn't knew pygrub already worked with Grub2 config file, apparently it does!)

I must say, I'm quite happy with this setup, so there is no need to do anything else to convert my VM to PV mode, but I don't understand it.

Thank you.

yep, 2.6.32 already has (limited) support for xen in pv_ops , means it can operate in PV mode under XCP. But you gonna hit few bugs (time jerking during migration, some issues with dynamic memory).

Xen-api mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.