Remus and Kemari...

Remus and Kemari...

[gilberto nunes]

I installed the Remus but had some problems.
He leaves the VM very slow. I'm using a partition with DRBD / LVM.
May even be that you say that has many layers (DRBD / LVM) that can
influence on performance.
But the interesting thing is that when Remus is not running the VM is light
even with 512M of memory. And look what I'm talking about a Windows 2003
Standard Edition.
The Remus to stop working inexplicably (at least for me)
and let the VM's started in a state of the two nodes ...

On the other hand Kemari was easier to implement, though I
I have to apply patch to xen 3.3, kernel 2.6.18.8-xen. This is
boring part of the work.
But the Kemari was more robust as it were. Did not fall even once.
I'm still learning how to push it right over I felt more
safe with him ...
Safe in the sense that he did not let me down like the Remus ... Same
activating the Kemari the VM has not felt any impact ... With the click 
Remus
Start Windows took about 30 seconds ... It seems
great thing, but in a production environment with the database is
another story.

Maybe some disability with my Remus know ...

However I am still doing my experiences. I'll see what happens ...

Hugs and thanks
-- 
*Gilberto Nunes Ferreira*
*TI*
*Selbetti Gestão de Documentos*
*Telefone: +55 (47) 3441-6004*
*Celular: +55 (47) 8861-6672*



<><

Re: Remus and Kemari...

[Brendan Cully]

On Thursday, 14 January 2010 at 09:52, gilberto nunes wrote:
> I installed the Remus but had some problems.
> He leaves the VM very slow. I'm using a partition with DRBD / LVM.
> May even be that you say that has many layers (DRBD / LVM) that can
> influence on performance.
> But the interesting thing is that when Remus is not running the VM is light
> even with 512M of memory. And look what I'm talking about a Windows 2003
> Standard Edition.
> The Remus to stop working inexplicably (at least for me)
> and let the VM's started in a state of the two nodes ...

It's taken me a while to get Xen unstable running again, but now that
I have I can't reproduce any of these problems with an XP guest. It
remains responsive while Remus is running, and doesn't fail over
unless I kill it.

Disk access isn't likely to make a huge performance difference
(although I should say, simply parking a Remus VM on top of DRBD is
not safe, since there is no way of rolling back changes that have been
written since the most recent checkpoint). It sounds like your network
link between the primary and backup is either low capacity or flaky in
some way, or you have a loaded dom0.

I'd recommend using single-processor dom0 and guest to start with, and
pinning the VCPUs to their own separate physical cores. I'd also do a
bit of network measurement along the link you're using to the backup,
to check capacity, latency, and jitter.

Re: Remus and Kemari...

[Gilberto Nunes]

Em Quarta-feira 20 Janeiro 2010, às 22:20:17, Brendan Cully escreveu:

Hi Brendan...


> On Thursday, 14 January 2010 at 09:52, gilberto nunes wrote:
> > I installed the Remus but had some problems.
> > He leaves the VM very slow. I'm using a partition with DRBD / LVM.
> > May even be that you say that has many layers (DRBD / LVM) that can
> > influence on performance.
> > But the interesting thing is that when Remus is not running the VM is
> > light even with 512M of memory. And look what I'm talking about a Windows
> > 2003 Standard Edition.
> > The Remus to stop working inexplicably (at least for me)
> > and let the VM's started in a state of the two nodes ...
> 

> It's taken me a while to get Xen unstable running again, but now that
> I have I can't reproduce any of these problems with an XP guest. It
> remains responsive while Remus is running, and doesn't fail over
> unless I kill it.

Right

> 
> Disk access isn't likely to make a huge performance difference
> (although I should say, simply parking a Remus VM on top of DRBD is
> not safe, since there is no way of rolling back changes that have been
> written since the most recent checkpoint). 

What you suggest... NFS!

> It sounds like your network
> link between the primary and backup is either low capacity or flaky in
> some way, or you have a loaded dom0.

My network between primary and backup server is a dedicate network, make with 
a dedicate fast ethernet switch...

I do not understand wath you say about that "I have a loaded dom0". On fact, 
Xen always have a loaded dom0, right!

> 
> I'd recommend using single-processor dom0 and guest to start with, and
> pinning the VCPUs to their own separate physical cores. 

I see. But how I do this!! I am a newbie. If you can point some ways to me, 
I'll appreciate...

> I'd also do a
> bit of network measurement along the link you're using to the backup,
> to check capacity, latency, and jitter.
> 


Thanks a lot
-- 

Gilberto Nunes Ferreira
TI
Selbetti Gestão de Documentos
Telefone: +55 (47) 3441-6004
Celular: +55 (47) 8861-6672 

Re: Remus and Kemari...

[Pasi Kärkkäinen]

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 08:12:21AM -0200, Gilberto Nunes wrote:
> Em Quarta-feira 20 Janeiro 2010, às 22:20:17, Brendan Cully escreveu:
> 
> Hi Brendan...
> 
> 
> > On Thursday, 14 January 2010 at 09:52, gilberto nunes wrote:
> > > I installed the Remus but had some problems.
> > > He leaves the VM very slow. I'm using a partition with DRBD / LVM.
> > > May even be that you say that has many layers (DRBD / LVM) that can
> > > influence on performance.
> > > But the interesting thing is that when Remus is not running the VM is
> > > light even with 512M of memory. And look what I'm talking about a Windows
> > > 2003 Standard Edition.
> > > The Remus to stop working inexplicably (at least for me)
> > > and let the VM's started in a state of the two nodes ...
> > 
> 
> > It's taken me a while to get Xen unstable running again, but now that
> > I have I can't reproduce any of these problems with an XP guest. It
> > remains responsive while Remus is running, and doesn't fail over
> > unless I kill it.
> 
> Right
> 
> > 
> > Disk access isn't likely to make a huge performance difference
> > (although I should say, simply parking a Remus VM on top of DRBD is
> > not safe, since there is no way of rolling back changes that have been
> > written since the most recent checkpoint). 
> 
> What you suggest... NFS!
> 
> > It sounds like your network
> > link between the primary and backup is either low capacity or flaky in
> > some way, or you have a loaded dom0.
> 
> My network between primary and backup server is a dedicate network, make with 
> a dedicate fast ethernet switch...
>

Not sure if Fast Ethernet is enough for Remus syncing? 
 
> I do not understand wath you say about that "I have a loaded dom0". On fact, 
> Xen always have a loaded dom0, right!
> 

I bet he meant "do you have high load on dom0", aka do you have high cpu usage in dom0? 
Try running "xm top" to figure out. And also normal "top" in dom0.

> > 
> > I'd recommend using single-processor dom0 and guest to start with, and
> > pinning the VCPUs to their own separate physical cores. 
> 
> I see. But how I do this!! I am a newbie. If you can point some ways to me, 
> I'll appreciate...
> 

See:
http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenCommonProblems

There's a chapter called "How can I limit the number of vcpus my dom0 has?"
and "Can I dedicate a cpu core (or cores) only for dom0?"

-- Pasi

Re: Remus and Kemari...

[Gilberto Nunes]

Em Quinta-feira 21 Janeiro 2010, às 08:16:55, você escreveu:

Hi Pasi

> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 08:12:21AM -0200, Gilberto Nunes wrote:
> > Em Quarta-feira 20 Janeiro 2010, às 22:20:17, Brendan Cully escreveu:
> >
> > Hi Brendan...
> >
> > > On Thursday, 14 January 2010 at 09:52, gilberto nunes wrote:
> > > > I installed the Remus but had some problems.
> > > > He leaves the VM very slow. I'm using a partition with DRBD / LVM.
> > > > May even be that you say that has many layers (DRBD / LVM) that can
> > > > influence on performance.
> > > > But the interesting thing is that when Remus is not running the VM is
> > > > light even with 512M of memory. And look what I'm talking about a
> > > > Windows 2003 Standard Edition.
> > > > The Remus to stop working inexplicably (at least for me)
> > > > and let the VM's started in a state of the two nodes ...
> > >
> > > It's taken me a while to get Xen unstable running again, but now that
> > > I have I can't reproduce any of these problems with an XP guest. It
> > > remains responsive while Remus is running, and doesn't fail over
> > > unless I kill it.
> >
> > Right
> >
> > > Disk access isn't likely to make a huge performance difference
> > > (although I should say, simply parking a Remus VM on top of DRBD is
> > > not safe, since there is no way of rolling back changes that have been
> > > written since the most recent checkpoint).
> >
> > What you suggest... NFS!
> >
> > > It sounds like your network
> > > link between the primary and backup is either low capacity or flaky in
> > > some way, or you have a loaded dom0.
> >
> > My network between primary and backup server is a dedicate network, make
> > with a dedicate fast ethernet switch...
> 
> Not sure if Fast Ethernet is enough for Remus syncing?

Well, I try too with crossover network cable, in Giga Ethernet, but I have the 
same...

> 
> > I do not understand wath you say about that "I have a loaded dom0". On
> > fact, Xen always have a loaded dom0, right!
> 
> I bet he meant "do you have high load on dom0", aka do you have high cpu
>  usage in dom0? Try running "xm top" to figure out. And also normal "top"
>  in dom0.

Ok... I run xm top and get this:

NAME	     
Domain-0

STATE	
-----r

CPU(sec) 
135


CPU(%)  
0.6

MEM(k)  
7226368

MEM(%)
86.2

MAXME(k)
no limit

MAXMEM(%)
n/a

VCPUS 
2

Something wrong!!!

>>> I'd recommend using single-processor dom0 and guest to start with, and
> > > pinning the VCPUs to their own separate physical cores.
> >
> > I see. But how I do this!! I am a newbie. If you can point some ways to
> > me, I'll appreciate...
> 
> See:
> http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenCommonProblems
> 
> There's a chapter called "How can I limit the number of vcpus my dom0 has?"
> and "Can I dedicate a cpu core (or cores) only for dom0?"

I see... However, this procedure do not take alway the beneficity of multi-
core processors to my VM's!!!!

Thanks

-- Gilberto
> 
> -- Pasi
> 

-- 

Gilberto Nunes Ferreira
TI
Selbetti Gestão de Documentos
Telefone: +55 (47) 3441-6004
Celular: +55 (47) 8861-6672 

Re: Remus and Kemari...

[Pasi Kärkkäinen]

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 08:40:35AM -0200, Gilberto Nunes wrote:
> Em Quinta-feira 21 Janeiro 2010, às 08:16:55, você escreveu:
> 
> Hi Pasi
> 
> > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 08:12:21AM -0200, Gilberto Nunes wrote:
> > > Em Quarta-feira 20 Janeiro 2010, às 22:20:17, Brendan Cully escreveu:
> > >
> > > Hi Brendan...
> > >
> > > > On Thursday, 14 January 2010 at 09:52, gilberto nunes wrote:
> > > > > I installed the Remus but had some problems.
> > > > > He leaves the VM very slow. I'm using a partition with DRBD / LVM.
> > > > > May even be that you say that has many layers (DRBD / LVM) that can
> > > > > influence on performance.
> > > > > But the interesting thing is that when Remus is not running the VM is
> > > > > light even with 512M of memory. And look what I'm talking about a
> > > > > Windows 2003 Standard Edition.
> > > > > The Remus to stop working inexplicably (at least for me)
> > > > > and let the VM's started in a state of the two nodes ...
> > > >
> > > > It's taken me a while to get Xen unstable running again, but now that
> > > > I have I can't reproduce any of these problems with an XP guest. It
> > > > remains responsive while Remus is running, and doesn't fail over
> > > > unless I kill it.
> > >
> > > Right
> > >
> > > > Disk access isn't likely to make a huge performance difference
> > > > (although I should say, simply parking a Remus VM on top of DRBD is
> > > > not safe, since there is no way of rolling back changes that have been
> > > > written since the most recent checkpoint).
> > >
> > > What you suggest... NFS!
> > >
> > > > It sounds like your network
> > > > link between the primary and backup is either low capacity or flaky in
> > > > some way, or you have a loaded dom0.
> > >
> > > My network between primary and backup server is a dedicate network, make
> > > with a dedicate fast ethernet switch...
> > 
> > Not sure if Fast Ethernet is enough for Remus syncing?
> 
> Well, I try too with crossover network cable, in Giga Ethernet, but I have the 
> same...
> 
> > 
> > > I do not understand wath you say about that "I have a loaded dom0". On
> > > fact, Xen always have a loaded dom0, right!
> > 
> > I bet he meant "do you have high load on dom0", aka do you have high cpu
> >  usage in dom0? Try running "xm top" to figure out. And also normal "top"
> >  in dom0.
> 
> Ok... I run xm top and get this:
> 
> NAME	     
> Domain-0
> 
> STATE	
> -----r
> 
> CPU(sec) 
> 135
> 
> 
> CPU(%)  
> 0.6
> 

So it's not using much CPU.

> MEM(k)  
> 7226368
> 
> MEM(%)
> 86.2
> 

Did you configure dom0_mem= for Xen? 

See:
http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenBestPractices

Or is there something in dom0 using all the memory for real? 
Run "top" in dom0, and sort by memory usage by pressing shift+m.


> MAXME(k)
> no limit
> 
> MAXMEM(%)
> n/a
> 
> VCPUS 
> 2
> 
> Something wrong!!!
> 
> >>> I'd recommend using single-processor dom0 and guest to start with, and
> > > > pinning the VCPUs to their own separate physical cores.
> > >
> > > I see. But how I do this!! I am a newbie. If you can point some ways to
> > > me, I'll appreciate...
> > 
> > See:
> > http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenCommonProblems
> > 
> > There's a chapter called "How can I limit the number of vcpus my dom0 has?"
> > and "Can I dedicate a cpu core (or cores) only for dom0?"
> 
> I see... However, this procedure do not take alway the beneficity of multi-
> core processors to my VM's!!!!
> 

You can still use multiple cores on your VMs.

If you don't want to dedicate a core only for dom0, at least configure the 
domain weights so that dom0 is guaranteed to get enough CPU time.

-- Pasi

Re: Remus and Kemari...

[Gilberto Nunes]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4774 bytes --]

Em Quinta-feira 21 Janeiro 2010, às 08:43:27, Pasi Kärkkäinen escreveu:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 08:40:35AM -0200, Gilberto Nunes wrote:
> > Em Quinta-feira 21 Janeiro 2010, às 08:16:55, você escreveu:
> >
> > Hi Pasi
> >
> > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 08:12:21AM -0200, Gilberto Nunes wrote:
> > > > Em Quarta-feira 20 Janeiro 2010, às 22:20:17, Brendan Cully escreveu:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Brendan...
> > > >
> > > > > On Thursday, 14 January 2010 at 09:52, gilberto nunes wrote:
> > > > > > I installed the Remus but had some problems.
> > > > > > He leaves the VM very slow. I'm using a partition with DRBD /
> > > > > > LVM. May even be that you say that has many layers (DRBD / LVM)
> > > > > > that can influence on performance.
> > > > > > But the interesting thing is that when Remus is not running the
> > > > > > VM is light even with 512M of memory. And look what I'm talking
> > > > > > about a Windows 2003 Standard Edition.
> > > > > > The Remus to stop working inexplicably (at least for me)
> > > > > > and let the VM's started in a state of the two nodes ...
> > > > >
> > > > > It's taken me a while to get Xen unstable running again, but now
> > > > > that I have I can't reproduce any of these problems with an XP
> > > > > guest. It remains responsive while Remus is running, and doesn't
> > > > > fail over unless I kill it.
> > > >
> > > > Right
> > > >
> > > > > Disk access isn't likely to make a huge performance difference
> > > > > (although I should say, simply parking a Remus VM on top of DRBD is
> > > > > not safe, since there is no way of rolling back changes that have
> > > > > been written since the most recent checkpoint).
> > > >
> > > > What you suggest... NFS!
> > > >
> > > > > It sounds like your network
> > > > > link between the primary and backup is either low capacity or flaky
> > > > > in some way, or you have a loaded dom0.
> > > >
> > > > My network between primary and backup server is a dedicate network,
> > > > make with a dedicate fast ethernet switch...
> > >
> > > Not sure if Fast Ethernet is enough for Remus syncing?
> >
> > Well, I try too with crossover network cable, in Giga Ethernet, but I
> > have the same...
> >
> > > > I do not understand wath you say about that "I have a loaded dom0".
> > > > On fact, Xen always have a loaded dom0, right!
> > >
> > > I bet he meant "do you have high load on dom0", aka do you have high
> > > cpu usage in dom0? Try running "xm top" to figure out. And also normal
> > > "top" in dom0.
> >
> > Ok... I run xm top and get this:
> >
> > NAME
> > Domain-0
> >
> > STATE
> > -----r
> >
> > CPU(sec)
> > 135
> >
> >
> > CPU(%)
> > 0.6
> 
> So it's not using much CPU.

right... indeed I have just one VM running right now... My server has 8G 
amount of memory and it is a Intel Xeon E3113 3.00 GHZ

> 
> > MEM(k)
> > 7226368
> >
> > MEM(%)
> > 86.2
> 
> Did you configure dom0_mem= for Xen?

Yes! It's dangerous or not!!

> 
> See:
> http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenBestPractices
> 
> Or is there something in dom0 using all the memory for real?
no... all clean... :)

> Run "top" in dom0, and sort by memory usage by pressing shift+m.
> 
> > MAXME(k)
> > no limit
> >
> > MAXMEM(%)
> > n/a
> >
> > VCPUS
> > 2
> >
> > Something wrong!!!
> >
> > >>> I'd recommend using single-processor dom0 and guest to start with,
> > >>> and
> > >>>
> > > > > pinning the VCPUs to their own separate physical cores.
> > > >
> > > > I see. But how I do this!! I am a newbie. If you can point some ways
> > > > to me, I'll appreciate...
> > >
> > > See:
> > > http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenCommonProblems
> > >
> > > There's a chapter called "How can I limit the number of vcpus my dom0
> > > has?" and "Can I dedicate a cpu core (or cores) only for dom0?"
> >
> > I see... However, this procedure do not take alway the beneficity of
> > multi- core processors to my VM's!!!!
> 
> You can still use multiple cores on your VMs.
> 
> If you don't want to dedicate a core only for dom0, at least configure the
> domain weights so that dom0 is guaranteed to get enough CPU time.

So, in theoretical way, Remus would running properly with this adjust right! 
(sorry, I using now KDE 4 on opensuse, and I cannot yet configure my keyboard 
proerly, so the dor question go always from my board...rsrsrsr...)

Thanks for all....

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

-- 

Gilberto Nunes Ferreira
TI
Selbetti Gestão de Documentos
Telefone: +55 (47) 3441-6004
Celular: +55 (47) 8861-6672 








[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 28402 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: Remus and Kemari...

[Gilberto Nunes]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5484 bytes --]


Well Pasi and others...

I do not know whats happen... I follow each instruction contents on this mail 
and other ones and remus crash again!

However, I already compile Xen 3.3 testing with Kemari patch and Kemari show 
more stable that Remus....

Maybe I am wrong with this option, but I will remain with Kemari :)

Thanks


Em Qui 21 Jan 2010, às 08:57:37, Gilberto Nunes escreveu:
> Em Quinta-feira 21 Janeiro 2010, às 08:43:27, Pasi Kärkkäinen escreveu:
> > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 08:40:35AM -0200, Gilberto Nunes wrote:
> > > Em Quinta-feira 21 Janeiro 2010, às 08:16:55, você escreveu:
> > >
> > > Hi Pasi
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 08:12:21AM -0200, Gilberto Nunes wrote:
> > > > > Em Quarta-feira 20 Janeiro 2010, às 22:20:17, Brendan Cully
> > > > > escreveu:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Brendan...
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Thursday, 14 January 2010 at 09:52, gilberto nunes wrote:
> > > > > > > I installed the Remus but had some problems.
> > > > > > > He leaves the VM very slow. I'm using a partition with DRBD /
> > > > > > > LVM. May even be that you say that has many layers (DRBD / LVM)
> > > > > > > that can influence on performance.
> > > > > > > But the interesting thing is that when Remus is not running the
> > > > > > > VM is light even with 512M of memory. And look what I'm talking
> > > > > > > about a Windows 2003 Standard Edition.
> > > > > > > The Remus to stop working inexplicably (at least for me)
> > > > > > > and let the VM's started in a state of the two nodes ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's taken me a while to get Xen unstable running again, but now
> > > > > > that I have I can't reproduce any of these problems with an XP
> > > > > > guest. It remains responsive while Remus is running, and doesn't
> > > > > > fail over unless I kill it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Right
> > > > >
> > > > > > Disk access isn't likely to make a huge performance difference
> > > > > > (although I should say, simply parking a Remus VM on top of DRBD
> > > > > > is not safe, since there is no way of rolling back changes that
> > > > > > have been written since the most recent checkpoint).
> > > > >
> > > > > What you suggest... NFS!
> > > > >
> > > > > > It sounds like your network
> > > > > > link between the primary and backup is either low capacity or
> > > > > > flaky in some way, or you have a loaded dom0.
> > > > >
> > > > > My network between primary and backup server is a dedicate network,
> > > > > make with a dedicate fast ethernet switch...
> > > >
> > > > Not sure if Fast Ethernet is enough for Remus syncing?
> > >
> > > Well, I try too with crossover network cable, in Giga Ethernet, but I
> > > have the same...
> > >
> > > > > I do not understand wath you say about that "I have a loaded dom0".
> > > > > On fact, Xen always have a loaded dom0, right!
> > > >
> > > > I bet he meant "do you have high load on dom0", aka do you have high
> > > > cpu usage in dom0? Try running "xm top" to figure out. And also
> > > > normal "top" in dom0.
> > >
> > > Ok... I run xm top and get this:
> > >
> > > NAME
> > > Domain-0
> > >
> > > STATE
> > > -----r
> > >
> > > CPU(sec)
> > > 135
> > >
> > >
> > > CPU(%)
> > > 0.6
> >
> > So it's not using much CPU.
> 
> right... indeed I have just one VM running right now... My server has 8G
> amount of memory and it is a Intel Xeon E3113 3.00 GHZ
> 
> > > MEM(k)
> > > 7226368
> > >
> > > MEM(%)
> > > 86.2
> >
> > Did you configure dom0_mem= for Xen?
> 
> Yes! It's dangerous or not!!
> 
> > See:
> > http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenBestPractices
> >
> > Or is there something in dom0 using all the memory for real?
> 
> no... all clean... :)
> 
> > Run "top" in dom0, and sort by memory usage by pressing shift+m.
> >
> > > MAXME(k)
> > > no limit
> > >
> > > MAXMEM(%)
> > > n/a
> > >
> > > VCPUS
> > > 2
> > >
> > > Something wrong!!!
> > >
> > > >>> I'd recommend using single-processor dom0 and guest to start with,
> > > >>> and
> > > >>>
> > > > > > pinning the VCPUs to their own separate physical cores.
> > > > >
> > > > > I see. But how I do this!! I am a newbie. If you can point some
> > > > > ways to me, I'll appreciate...
> > > >
> > > > See:
> > > > http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenCommonProblems
> > > >
> > > > There's a chapter called "How can I limit the number of vcpus my dom0
> > > > has?" and "Can I dedicate a cpu core (or cores) only for dom0?"
> > >
> > > I see... However, this procedure do not take alway the beneficity of
> > > multi- core processors to my VM's!!!!
> >
> > You can still use multiple cores on your VMs.
> >
> > If you don't want to dedicate a core only for dom0, at least configure
> > the domain weights so that dom0 is guaranteed to get enough CPU time.
> 
> So, in theoretical way, Remus would running properly with this adjust
>  right! (sorry, I using now KDE 4 on opensuse, and I cannot yet configure
>  my keyboard proerly, so the dor question go always from my
>  board...rsrsrsr...)
> 
> Thanks for all....
> 
> > -- Pasi
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Xen-devel mailing list
> > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> 

-- 

Gilberto Nunes Ferreira
Selbetti Gestão de Documentos
Suporte TI
Telefone: +55 (47) 3441-6004
Celular: +55 (47) 8861-6672
MSN: gilbertonunesferreira@hotmail.com

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 30808 bytes --]

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

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