Xen 3.0.0 released!

Xen 3.0.0 released!

[Ian Pratt]

Folks,

Now seems a good time to call a Xen 3.0.0 release!  We've been seeing
good stability on the XenRT regression tests for the last couple of
weeks, and the number of bug reports submitted to bugzilla have
dropped right down. It's time to get a bigger group of people to start
beating up on it...

mercurial source: http://xenbits.xensource.com/xen-3.0-testing.hg

Along with the usual binary install tarball, we've created a new
live-iso demo CD, and some RPM packages for common linux
distros. Among the RPM downloads are 'xen-friendly' glibc packages.
See http://www.xensource.com/xen/downloads

[Please use the Torrent versions if you can; http downloads require
email registration so we can control server load over the next few
days.]

I expect we'll be spinning fixes to the 3.0 series fairly frequently
over the next few weeks. You'll be able to find the very latest
updates by pulling source from the 3.0-testing.hg tree, or using the
nightly builds. 

For the next few weeks, the xen-unstable.hg tree will be used to test
further releases in the 3.0.x series (we'll checkin the version of
linux 2.6.14 that has xen as a sub-arch that's currently sitting in
linux-2.6-xen.hg), before forking off to become the 3.1 development
branch once things have settled down on 3.0.

As usual, please send those bug reports to the mailing lists and
bugzilla!

Best,
Ian

Re: Xen 3.0.0 released!

[Michael Holzt]

> Now seems a good time to call a Xen 3.0.0 release!

The source code download tar.gz seems to disagree, as it contains an
'xen-unstable' directory. You probably want to change that :-)

Regards
Michael

-- 
      It's an insane world, but i'm proud to be a part of it. -- Bill Hicks

RE: Xen 3.0.0 released!

[Cihula, Joseph]

Ian,

For those of us working on bug fixes for the 3.0.x releases, how would
you like us to submit the patches?  One against 3.0-testing.hg and
another against xen-unstable.hg?

Joseph Cihula
(Linux) Software Security Architect
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corp.

*** These opinions are not necessarily those of my employer ***

On Monday, December 05, 2005 4:58 AM,  Ian Pratt <> wrote:

> Folks,
> 
> Now seems a good time to call a Xen 3.0.0 release!  We've been seeing
> good stability on the XenRT regression tests for the last couple of
> weeks, and the number of bug reports submitted to bugzilla have
> dropped right down. It's time to get a bigger group of people to start
> beating up on it...
> 
> mercurial source: http://xenbits.xensource.com/xen-3.0-testing.hg
> 
> Along with the usual binary install tarball, we've created a new
> live-iso demo CD, and some RPM packages for common linux
> distros. Among the RPM downloads are 'xen-friendly' glibc packages.
> See http://www.xensource.com/xen/downloads
> 
> [Please use the Torrent versions if you can; http downloads require
> email registration so we can control server load over the next few
> days.]
> 
> I expect we'll be spinning fixes to the 3.0 series fairly frequently
> over the next few weeks. You'll be able to find the very latest
> updates by pulling source from the 3.0-testing.hg tree, or using the
> nightly builds.
> 
> For the next few weeks, the xen-unstable.hg tree will be used to test
> further releases in the 3.0.x series (we'll checkin the version of
> linux 2.6.14 that has xen as a sub-arch that's currently sitting in
> linux-2.6-xen.hg), before forking off to become the 3.1 development
> branch once things have settled down on 3.0.
> 
> As usual, please send those bug reports to the mailing lists and
> bugzilla!
> 
> Best,
> Ian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

RE: Xen 3.0.0 released!

[Ian Pratt]

 
> > Now seems a good time to call a Xen 3.0.0 release!
> 
> The source code download tar.gz seems to disagree, as it 
> contains an 'xen-unstable' directory. You probably want to 
> change that :-)

Oops, probably worth updating that to be at least "xen-3.0-testing". 

Thanks,
Ian
 

RE: Xen 3.0.0 released!

[Ian Pratt]

> For those of us working on bug fixes for the 3.0.x releases, 
> how would you like us to submit the patches?  One against 
> 3.0-testing.hg and another against xen-unstable.hg?

I think its best off sending patches against unstable, for us to cherry
pick into testing.

Thanks,
Ian
 
> Joseph Cihula
> (Linux) Software Security Architect
> Open Source Technology Center
> Intel Corp.
> 
> *** These opinions are not necessarily those of my employer ***
> 
> On Monday, December 05, 2005 4:58 AM,  Ian Pratt <> wrote:
> 
> > Folks,
> > 
> > Now seems a good time to call a Xen 3.0.0 release!  We've 
> been seeing 
> > good stability on the XenRT regression tests for the last couple of 
> > weeks, and the number of bug reports submitted to bugzilla have 
> > dropped right down. It's time to get a bigger group of 
> people to start 
> > beating up on it...
> > 
> > mercurial source: http://xenbits.xensource.com/xen-3.0-testing.hg
> > 
> > Along with the usual binary install tarball, we've created a new 
> > live-iso demo CD, and some RPM packages for common linux distros. 
> > Among the RPM downloads are 'xen-friendly' glibc packages.
> > See http://www.xensource.com/xen/downloads
> > 
> > [Please use the Torrent versions if you can; http downloads require 
> > email registration so we can control server load over the next few 
> > days.]
> > 
> > I expect we'll be spinning fixes to the 3.0 series fairly 
> frequently 
> > over the next few weeks. You'll be able to find the very latest 
> > updates by pulling source from the 3.0-testing.hg tree, or 
> using the 
> > nightly builds.
> > 
> > For the next few weeks, the xen-unstable.hg tree will be 
> used to test 
> > further releases in the 3.0.x series (we'll checkin the version of 
> > linux 2.6.14 that has xen as a sub-arch that's currently sitting in 
> > linux-2.6-xen.hg), before forking off to become the 3.1 development 
> > branch once things have settled down on 3.0.
> > 
> > As usual, please send those bug reports to the mailing lists and 
> > bugzilla!
> > 
> > Best,
> > Ian
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Xen-devel mailing list
> > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> 

Re: [Xen-devel] Xen 3.0.0 released!

[Adam Heath]

On Mon, 5 Dec 2005, Ian Pratt wrote:

>
> Folks,
>
> Now seems a good time to call a Xen 3.0.0 release!  We've been seeing
> good stability on the XenRT regression tests for the last couple of
> weeks, and the number of bug reports submitted to bugzilla have
> dropped right down. It's time to get a bigger group of people to start
> beating up on it...

That's great.

I've had 3.0-unstable debs prepared for awhile now; hadn't uploaded them, for
several reasons:

1) xen-unstable required a 2.6.12 base kernel; this no longer exists in
   debian, so it wasn't possible for me to build-depend on it, so I could
   create a standard unified-diff.

   My fix for that, is to encapsulate the mkbuildtree logic into the
   kernel-package patch system, and not use a unified-diff at kernel compile
   time.  I've got the apply script done, but not the unpatch
   script(basically, the script looks into the tar, notes all modified and new
   files, saves them into debian/, and then during unpatch restores things).

2) vif-route.sh is buggy; it doesn't handle the case where multiple adapters
   exist.  So, dom0_ip(and the functions it calls) ends up returning 2 ip
   addresses, which makes ifconfig complain.

   I've got a fix hot-patched on our deployed server, I'll be sending that
   soon.

3) It appeared that when I tried the final 3.0.0 release, that xenstored was
   very sick.  I had a previous(20051116 snapshot) installed, and the tdb file
   was corrupted(sorta).  xenstore-list / shows to local paths, but no vm nor
   tools.  Removing the file 'fixed' this.  I'm not certain exactly what
   happend, tho.

4) I currently have 11 separate patches.  Most are not debian-specific.  I'll
   send those soon as well, but acceptance is not required before I upload.

   Here's the directory listing; some may be able to take a guess as to what
   each patch does.

5) I see it's not possible to have both a xen microkernel that supports both
   pae and non-pae.  For individuals who are compiling themselves, that's
   fine; they can select which they want.

   However, for debian, I need to provide versions of xen compiled for both.
   The build system doesn't make that as easy as I like.  However, I'll fix it
   one way or another, even if I brute-force copy the entire directory.

   Also, what other options are available, that would require multiple
   compiles?  Also, I don't see a concise list of what config options I can
   tweak for xen itself; the documentation is a bit poor in that regard(pae
   isn't even mentioned in the documentation; you have to read a separate
   README).

6) This isn't a big problem, and I'll probably just punt on it(by having the
   xen3 debs conflict with the xen2 debs as appropriate), but it's not
   possible to install xen2 and xen3 support code at the same time.  All of
   the c binaries, and python scripts could be made to look in versioned
   locations; however, the python modules are the problem.  It'd be really
   nice if instead of placing themselves in a xen directory, they were in a
   xen2 or xen3 directory.

I won't be doing much of any of the work above today.  I only had 3 hours
sleep last night(had to rush-deploy the xen3 server we were preparing, so we
could migrate a broken real machine to xen).  However, this weekend will see
me upload to debian itself.  I'll also be attempting to make the deb work on
amd64 and ia64, doing test compiles on debian's machines first.

RE: Xen 3.0.0 released!

[Paul Dorman]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2486 bytes --]

And then there's the linux-2.6-xen.hg no PTYs problem I've asked about
previously. Selecting Xen subarchitecture nukes 90% of the device
drivers section. Consequently I can't get a shell running on 2.6.14 domu
machines. I've asked about this before but no-one seems to have an
answer for me.

Paul

On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 21:32 +0000, Ian Pratt wrote:
> Do you have 2.6.14? You could build based on linux-2.6-xen.hg, but this
> hasn't has s much testing (we know of at least on issue on x86_64)
>  
> > 2) vif-route.sh is buggy; it doesn't handle the case where 
> > multiple adapters
> >    exist.  So, dom0_ip(and the functions it calls) ends up 
> > returning 2 ip
> >    addresses, which makes ifconfig complain.
> > 
> >    I've got a fix hot-patched on our deployed server, I'll be 
> > sending that
> >    soon.
> 
> Please post it, thanks.
>  
> > 3) It appeared that when I tried the final 3.0.0 release, 
> > that xenstored was
> >    very sick.  I had a previous(20051116 snapshot) installed, 
> > and the tdb file
> >    was corrupted(sorta).  xenstore-list / shows to local 
> > paths, but no vm nor
> >    tools.  Removing the file 'fixed' this.  I'm not certain 
> > exactly what
> >    happend, tho.
> 
> It's possible that the install scripts should delete the database when
> performing an upgrade. I don't think there have been any format changes
> in a while, though.
> 
> > 5) I see it's not possible to have both a xen microkernel 
> > that supports both
> >    pae and non-pae.  For individuals who are compiling 
> > themselves, that's
> >    fine; they can select which they want.
> 
> Yep, no real way round that. Most users are already trained to this
> thanks to it being a compile time option in Linux.
>  
> >    Also, what other options are available, that would require multiple
> >    compiles?  Also, I don't see a concise list of what config 
> > options I can
> >    tweak for xen itself; the documentation is a bit poor in 
> > that regard(pae
> >    isn't even mentioned in the documentation; you have to 
> > read a separate
> >    README).
> 
> Having a debug/verbose build of xen is sometimes handy for debugging
> things, but since debug builds are deliberatly combatitive its probably
> not a good idea for production. 
> 
> Ian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Re: Xen 3.0.0 released!

[Michael Holzt]

> Do you have 2.6.14? You could build based on linux-2.6-xen.hg, but this
> hasn't has s much testing (we know of at least on issue on x86_64)

I'm currently trying to build a debian kernel package out of
linux-2.6-xen.hg but the build fails. It seems that 'make bzImage' is
nonfunctional on linux-2.6-xen.hg but does not give any error. So only the
modules are compiled and then kernel package fails because it can't locate
the (not built) kernel.



Regards
Michael

-- 
      It's an insane world, but i'm proud to be a part of it. -- Bill Hicks

RE: Xen 3.0.0 released!

[Adam Heath]

On Wed, 7 Dec 2005, Ian Pratt wrote:

> Do you have 2.6.14? You could build based on linux-2.6-xen.hg, but this
> hasn't has s much testing (we know of at least on issue on x86_64)

We do, but the new way I'll be packaging the source doesn't require any kernel
source in debian.  Whatever xen ships, will be in the xen deb.

I'd prefer to only use real releases; if I have multiple xen versions, then it
becomples complex with file overlaps and dependencies and parallel installs.

And, even then, it's not hard to see a point in the future where a new linux
kernel comes out, but xen-stable(3.0) doesn't upgrade to it, and then the
source I do require gets removed.  My new way gets rid of all of these
problems, and makes the local admin get the kernel source his own way.

> > 2) vif-route.sh is buggy; it doesn't handle the case where
> > multiple adapters
> >    exist.  So, dom0_ip(and the functions it calls) ends up
> > returning 2 ip
> >    addresses, which makes ifconfig complain.
> >
> >    I've got a fix hot-patched on our deployed server, I'll be
> > sending that
> >    soon.
>
> Please post it, thanks.

In vif-common.sh, ip_of should be this:
==
function ip_of()
{
  ip addr show "$1" | awk "/^.*inet.*$1\$/{print \$2}" | sed 's,/.*,,'
}
==

Sorry it's not in diff form, I just pasted what is on our production server.

> > 3) It appeared that when I tried the final 3.0.0 release,
> > that xenstored was
> >    very sick.  I had a previous(20051116 snapshot) installed,
> > and the tdb file
> >    was corrupted(sorta).  xenstore-list / shows to local
> > paths, but no vm nor
> >    tools.  Removing the file 'fixed' this.  I'm not certain
> > exactly what
> >    happend, tho.
>
> It's possible that the install scripts should delete the database when
> performing an upgrade. I don't think there have been any format changes
> in a while, though.

Well, not delete.  Maybe dump to a text form, then reimport.

> > 5) I see it's not possible to have both a xen microkernel
> > that supports both
> >    pae and non-pae.  For individuals who are compiling
> > themselves, that's
> >    fine; they can select which they want.
>
> Yep, no real way round that. Most users are already trained to this
> thanks to it being a compile time option in Linux.

That's true, but the xen hypervisor is not compiled by users; it's built once,
and installed thru a deb.

> >    Also, what other options are available, that would require multiple
> >    compiles?  Also, I don't see a concise list of what config
> > options I can
> >    tweak for xen itself; the documentation is a bit poor in
> > that regard(pae
> >    isn't even mentioned in the documentation; you have to
> > read a separate
> >    README).
>
> Having a debug/verbose build of xen is sometimes handy for debugging
> things, but since debug builds are deliberatly combatitive its probably
> not a good idea for production.

Then that sounds like a candidate for xen-debug.deb.

Re: Xen 3.0.0 released!

[Adam Heath]

On Wed, 7 Dec 2005, Michael Holzt wrote:

> > Do you have 2.6.14? You could build based on linux-2.6-xen.hg, but this
> > hasn't has s much testing (we know of at least on issue on x86_64)
>
> I'm currently trying to build a debian kernel package out of
> linux-2.6-xen.hg but the build fails. It seems that 'make bzImage' is
> nonfunctional on linux-2.6-xen.hg but does not give any error. So only the
> modules are compiled and then kernel package fails because it can't locate
> the (not built) kernel.

make-kpkg kernel-image --arch=xen

This will change the targets make-kpkg calls, namely, it won't call bzImage.

Re: Xen 3.0.0 released!

[Michael Holzt]

> make-kpkg kernel-image --arch=xen
> This will change the targets make-kpkg calls, namely, it won't call bzImage.

Nope, in linux-2.6-xen.hg there is no longer an architecture xen. Your
command fails.


Regards
Michael

-- 
      It's an insane world, but i'm proud to be a part of it. -- Bill Hicks

Re: Xen 3.0.0 released!

[Adam Heath]

On Wed, 7 Dec 2005, Michael Holzt wrote:

> > make-kpkg kernel-image --arch=xen
> > This will change the targets make-kpkg calls, namely, it won't call bzImage.
>
> Nope, in linux-2.6-xen.hg there is no longer an architecture xen. Your
> command fails.

Oh, then the support in make-kpkg needs to be tweaked, to take a
--subarch=xen.