From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ted Kaczmarek Subject: Re: PAE on xen-2.0 testing? Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 15:03:48 -0400 Message-ID: <1129575828.3496.139.camel@pluto.linsolutions.com> References: <4353EA9A.90307@stoeni.de> <200510171921.30312.mark.williamson@cl.cam.ac.uk> <4353ECC6.4060200@stoeni.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Return-path: In-reply-to: <4353ECC6.4060200@stoeni.de> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: stoeni Cc: Xen Devs List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 20:26 +0200, stoeni wrote: > Mark Williamson schrieb: > > I'm afraid if you want PAE you'll want unstable/3.0 - it'll probably never be > > backported to 2.0. Xen-unstable is relatively stable now though, so you > > might want to try it out for evaluation purposes since it will become 3.0 > > eventually. > > ok, good to know. the 3.0 thing doesn't really work, after mailing > hundreds :) of mails with keir yesterday the source from today broke the > system again. gdth causes a panic .. if it compiles some vif are coming > up, some not. same show as on saturday/sunday :( > > i'll wait the next days for an upcoming source that will work on this > maschine ;-) > How long ago did you start seeing these issues and on what hardware. With two or three nics I see this on an SMP Athlon and a UP P4. By this I mean vif not mapping to a bridge or mapping ro the wrong bridge. If I go back to a single nic setup using a secondary ip on the dom0 for the domU gateway things are playing nice. With two and three nics and bridge between dom0's I just increased the rate at which of my hair follicle count declines :-) Regards, Ted