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

Re: [Xen-users] Re: Access Hypervisor Control from DomU

  • To: XEN User - listmembers <xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Stephan Seitz <s.seitz@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 21:26:11 +0200
  • Delivery-date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 19:28:00 +0000
  • List-id: Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com>
  • Openpgp: id=A1BF522E

Hash: SHA1

John Smith schrieb:
> Nils Toedtmann wrote:
>> I remember reading that the only real difference between a dom0
>> and a domU kernel is the priviledge to have access to the
>> hypervisor. Why not declaring a special domU to a "fallback"
>> dom0? Not in the sense of having access to hw but control over
>> the hypervisor.
>> That would help if the original dom0 userland dies, but it's
>> kernel keeps forwarding/bridging packets and blockdevice-I/O,
>> like Stephan's dom0 did.
>> /nils.
Thanks for this hint, Nils. I'll try to setup another test system with
two dom0's,
just to see if this is possible. I'll post results if this leads to a
running system.

> Hi,
> if this would be a problem you would have to deal with in the real
> world, you would have a identical box on another location and move
> the domU's to it and reboot the problem box.
> Sincerely,
> Jan.
This was my first thought, but we didn't setup a fallback system (the
one, i
talked about, is just for testing purposes installed). Also, this
machine has all
it's filesystems on local disk, so a domU migration would last longer than
driving to the colo. For live systems, i would also prefer this
scenario, but i think
this is not managable without the use of a NAS/SAN.



Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


Xen-users mailing list



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