Re: [Xen-devel] Criteria / validation proposal: drop Xen

["marmarek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <marmarek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 10:58:03AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-07-11 at 09:57 -0500, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > On 7/8/19 11:11 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2019-05-21 at 11:14 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > > > > > > "The release must boot successfully as Xen DomU with releases 
> > > > > > > > providing
> > > > > > > > a functional, supported Xen Dom0 and widely used cloud providers
> > > > > > > > utilizing Xen."
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > and change the 'milestone' for the test case -
> > > > > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Boot_Methods_Xen_Para_Virt
> > > > > > > >  -
> > > > > > > > from Final to Optional.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Thoughts? Comments? Thanks!
> > > > > > > I would prefer for it to remain as it is.
> > > > > > This is only practical if it's going to be tested, and tested 
> > > > > > regularly
> > > > > > - not *only* on the final release candidate, right before we sign 
> > > > > > off
> > > > > > on the release. It needs to be tested regularly throughout the 
> > > > > > release
> > > > > > cycle, on the composes that are "nominated for testing".
> > > > > Would the proposal above work for you? I think it satisfies what you 
> > > > > are
> > > > > looking for. We would also have someone who monitors these test 
> > > > > results
> > > > > pro-actively.
> > > > In theory, yeah, but given the history here I'm somewhat sceptical. I'd
> > > > also say we still haven't really got a convincing case for why we
> > > > should continue to block the release (at least in theory) on Fedora
> > > > working in Xen when we don't block on any other virt stack apart from
> > > > our 'official' one, and we don't block on all sorts of other stuff we'd
> > > > "like to have working" either. Regardless of the testing issues, I'd
> > > > like to see that too if we're going to keep blocking on Xen...
> > > So, this died here. As things stand: I proposed removing the Xen
> > > criterion, Lars opposed, we discussed the testing situation a bit, and
> > > I said overall I'm still inclined to remove the criterion because
> > > there's no clear justification for it for Fedora any more. Xen working
> > > (or rather, Fedora working on Xen) is just not a key requirement for
> > > Fedora at present, AFAICS.
> > > 
> > > It's worth noting that at least part of the justification for the
> > > criterion in the first place was that Amazon was using Xen for EC2, but
> > > that is no longer the case, most if not all EC2 instance types no
> > > longer use Xen. Another consideration is that there was a time when KVM
> > > was still pretty new stuff and VirtualBox was not as popular as it is
> > > now, and Xen was still widely used for general hobbyist virtualization
> > > purposes; I don't believe that's really the case any more.
> > 
> > So I'll just point out this is false. Amazon very much uses Xen still 
> > and is investing in Xen still. In fact I'm writing this email from the 
> > XenSummit where Amazon is currently discussing their future development 
> > efforts for the Xen Project.
> 
> Sorry about that, it was just based on my best efforts at trying to
> figure it out; Amazon instance types don't all explicitly state exactly
> how they work.
> 
> Which EC2 instance types still use Xen?

I don't know what new instance types use Xen, but definitely there are
existing previous instance generations that are still running and not
going away anytime soon. From what I understand, they are still great
majority of EC2.

-- 
Best Regards,
Marek Marczykowski-Górecki
Invisible Things Lab

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel