Port-xen archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: what builds and what doesn't - worse than I expected

On 14 May 2014, at 00:42 , Greg Troxel <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost> wrote:

In a previous email:

> what about xen 3.3?  I expect people are still using it, even though
> I'm not sure of any reasons not to move to 4.1 or 4.2.

And here:

> I would say that if we can get things to build w/o pbulk that would be
> the most important step, and debugging the not-pbulk/pbulk secondary.
> Right now it's hard to recommend 4.1.

Unless I'm missing something it sounds like you just answered your own question 

So, FWIW, I'm still running 3.3 on a number of machines. While the problems of 
building 4.1 tools used to be one reason the other catch was a large chunk of 
custom software that I just recently finished porting to 4.X. I still intend to 
retain 3.3 for a year before fully trusting 4.X to be stable enough. Yes, I am 
that cautious.

> any hope of PCI passthrough on 4.1/4.2?
>> Someone needs to convert the python patch we had for 31 for 4.1.
>> Not sure what's needed for 4.2.
> That would be really great to have, because then we could recommend 4.1
> period and 3.1/3.3 could become really deprecated.

Please don't be too quick in deprecating 3.3. If we could keep Xen2 around for 
several years after Xen4 arrived, surely we can keep Xen3 for while.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index