From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Niall Fleming Subject: Re: Time Change Issue Xen 4.1 Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 18:16:04 +0000 Message-ID: <4ED7C464.6040609@webanywhere.co.uk> References: <4EBD5AA0.3090906@webanywhere.co.uk> <20111111183913.GA9283@phenom.dumpdata.com> <4EC0F20D0200007800060B7D@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <20111114180045.GA14517@phenom.dumpdata.com> <4EC16CA7.70901@goop.org> <20111116142604.GA7476@phenom.dumpdata.com> <4ED662B0.8060105@webanywhere.co.uk> <20111130222628.GE16651@andromeda.dapyr.net> <4ED740FD.4070603@webanywhere.co.uk> <1322733206.31810.173.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <4ED756BE.3070309@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4245614031396109523==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4ED756BE.3070309@redhat.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Laszlo Ersek Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Ian Campbell , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , "keir.xen@gmail.com" , Jan Beulich , "pbonzini@redhat.com" , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============4245614031396109523== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060601090803010506070408" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060601090803010506070408 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I wasn't expecting anyone to speed up and fix the issue, I just hoped that one or more of people who were involved in the original ticket could respond to a request for an update, I only asked for an update about once a week, even with busy schedules I would have thought that that was possible. I would look into the problem myself, but kernel hacking and hardcore XEN development is not my thing, I did not intend to put anyone's back up about the issue. I'd love to fix the problem myself, and am quite willing to test and debug stuff. For reference the issue is not a massive deal-breaker for me, but it will be when the hardware clock drifts next, particularly on the production machines which may have up to 100 instances on, it becomes a massive ball-ache to down the server and reboot it just to get the instances to boot with the correct time. *Niall Fleming BSc. (Hons)* Systems Administrator Webanywhere Limited Phone: 0800 862 0131 Ext: 203 Web: http://www.webanywhere.co.uk Aire Valley Business Centre, Lawkholme Lane, Keighley, BD21 3BB Registered in England with company number 4881346 On 01/12/2011 10:28, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > Hello Niall, > > On 12/01/11 10:53, Ian Campbell wrote: >> On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 08:55 +0000, Niall Fleming wrote: >>> Cheers, at least I know that someone is still looking at it! >>> >>> If someone could give me a general timeframe, like it'll be a month, >>> before we fix it, or two weeks or whatever, I just need to give my >>> line manager something so he gets off my case about it! >> >> I'm afraid OSS software doesn't generally work like that. If you (or >> your boss) wants something fixed on a specific time scale or priority >> you'll have to role your sleeves up and scratch the itch. Otherwise I'm >> sorry but you will just have to wait until someone has the cycles to >> look into this issue. > > I shouldn't comment on this, because > - it'll be off-topic, and > - (more importantly) personally I'm not knowledgeable enough to fix > the problem, > > but I feel compelled to point out that *in general* it's not about the > various rights accompanying the bits (ie. proprietary / open source / > free software). It's about who gets to allocate whose resources. Under > this aspect it's irrelevant under what rights the end product will be > released, the question is instead who backs the effort & costs of the > end product being hammered into existence. > > Users of FLOSS tend to mix up these two things ("what rights do I have > to the code?" vs. "work on this for my sake!"). For the second > concept, commercial relationships are (and have always been) the > default, even if extremely forthcoming FLOSS developers used to evoke > a different impression. > > (To make it abundantly clear, this is not an advertisment, and I'm > speaking *strictly* personally, for myself alone.) > > Laszlo --------------060601090803010506070408 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I wasn't expecting anyone to speed up and fix the issue, I just hoped that one or more of
people who were involved in the original ticket could respond to a request for an update,
I only asked for an update about once a week, even with busy schedules I would have
thought that that was possible.

I would look into the problem myself, but kernel hacking and hardcore XEN development is
not my thing, I did not intend to put anyone's back up about the issue. I'd love to fix the
problem myself, and am quite willing to test and debug stuff.

For reference the issue is not a massive deal-breaker for me, but it will be when the hardware
clock drifts next, particularly on the production machines which may have up to 100 instances
on, it becomes a massive ball-ache to down the server and reboot it just to get the instances to
boot with the correct time.

Niall Fleming BSc. (Hons)
Systems Administrator
Webanywhere Limited

Phone: 0800 862 0131 Ext: 203
Web: http://www.webanywhere.co.uk

Aire Valley Business Centre, Lawkholme Lane, Keighley, BD21 3BB
Registered in England with company number 4881346

On 01/12/2011 10:28, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
Hello Niall,

On 12/01/11 10:53, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 08:55 +0000, Niall Fleming wrote:
Cheers, at least I know that someone is still looking at it!

If someone could give me a general timeframe, like it'll be a month,
before we fix it, or two weeks or whatever, I just need to give my
line manager something so he gets off my case about it!

I'm afraid OSS software doesn't generally work like that. If you (or
your boss) wants something fixed on a specific time scale or priority
you'll have to role your sleeves up and scratch the itch. Otherwise I'm
sorry but you will just have to wait until someone has the cycles to
look into this issue.

I shouldn't comment on this, because
- it'll be off-topic, and
- (more importantly) personally I'm not knowledgeable enough to fix the problem,

but I feel compelled to point out that *in general* it's not about the various rights accompanying the bits (ie. proprietary / open source / free software). It's about who gets to allocate whose resources. Under this aspect it's irrelevant under what rights the end product will be released, the question is instead who backs the effort & costs of the end product being hammered into existence.

Users of FLOSS tend to mix up these two things ("what rights do I have to the code?" vs. "work on this for my sake!"). For the second concept, commercial relationships are (and have always been) the default, even if extremely forthcoming FLOSS developers used to evoke a different impression.

(To make it abundantly clear, this is not an advertisment, and I'm speaking *strictly* personally, for myself alone.)

Laszlo
--------------060601090803010506070408-- --===============4245614031396109523== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel --===============4245614031396109523==--