Re: Xen, Squeeze, and Beyond
----- "Ben Hutchings" <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 17:58 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > > But xen-tools have be removed from Squeeze, so I suppose it will
> be more difficult to create new
> > > installations (require much more work to replace the
> xen-create-image script).
> > Well, I've been maintaining dtc-xen since Lenny, and it does even
> more than xen-tools.
> > DTC-Xen is in Squeeze and I wont give-up on it.
> > > > 6) Are we communicating this to Debian users in some way? What
> can I do
> > > > to help with this point?
> > > Remind people that Xen is dying and KVM is the present and the
> > This is your own *personal view* on Xen vs KVM thing. I really
> > see Xen dying despite the 2 years of bad propaganda of the KVM
> > supporters. This eroneous view should *NOT* be pushed as Debian's
> > official view. Xen is doing well, and there are more chances that
> > dom0 patches will be accepted this year as people improve Xen as
> > required for inclusion.
> Xen might be doing well in some distributions but in lenny it has been
> disaster. We have been stuck with a dead-end branch that no-one has
> time and knowledge to fix. I believe squeeze will be better due to
> common base kernel version and some support from upstream Xen
> (particularly Ian Campbell), but it will still lack the wide support
> that KVM gets as a project that has been merged into the kernel.
However, the 2.6.26 kernel runs more reliably than the 2.6.18 kernels
provided by Citrix on my hardware, even though it has some weird bugs
which are probably not very feasible to fix (but those bugs have
I do agree that squeeze will be a considerable improvement over lenny,
though. The main thing is that the hypervisor ABI requirement needs to
be strongly enforced so that the damned thing will boot.