Re: [vserver] Need advice on which path to take for IPv6 support

From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat_at_cisco.com>
Date: Fri 08 Jan 2010 - 16:56:56 GMT
Message-ID: <4B4763D8.2090809@cisco.com>

Laurent Spagnol wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wrote a little script that should help you for building of
> Linux-Vserver from source code.
> You can choose your version of Kernel, patch, and Util-Vserver. It can
> be easily adapted from Debian to other distributions:
>
> http://dokuwicri.univ-reims.fr/files/vs-tools2/vs-tools/install-stage1.sh
> http://dokuwicri.univ-reims.fr/files/vs-tools2/vs-tools/install-stage1.cf.sample

We are using a custom system with a specialized build environment.
We already have the inclusion of the vserver patches folded into that.

But I appreciate the offer.

        Thanks,
        Paul

> Herbert Poetzl a écrit :
>> On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 01:04:39PM -0500, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>>
>>> Hello - this is my first time posting here.
>>>
>>
>>
>>> The project I am working on is currently using:
>>> - kernel 2.6.22.10
>>> - patch-2.6.22.10-vs2.2.0.5.diff
>>>
>>
>>
>>> That is working for us, but now we want to have support for IPv6 in
>>> the guests. I am trying to decide the most practical way to get there.
>>>
>>
>>
>>> At the moment, the most straightforward path seems to be:
>>> - kernel 2.6.22.19
>>> - patch-2.6.22.19-vs2.3.0.34.diff
>>>
>>
>>
>>> We are seriously considering that. But some of our people are
>>> concerned that we might have migration issues to deal with, or at
>>> least extra testing if we go that way, and are desirous of a more
>>> minimalist change.
>>>
>>
>>
>>> (We had previously been using patch-2.6.14.3-vs2.01.diff. When
>>> we migrated to patch-2.6.22.10-vs2.2.0.5.diff some of our guests
>>> encountered incompatibilities that we didn't discover until after the
>>> fact.
>>>
>>
>> just curious, what were the incompatibilities you discovered?
>>
>>
>>> That is making people gun shy. There is also some concern over
>>> switching from a "stable" release to a "development" release.)
>>>
>>
>> actually it is an experimental release :)
>>
>>
>>> So I've also been investigating the possibility of adding the IPv6
>>> capabilities to the vserver version we have. I see that was done for
>>> some vserver versions via additional patches from:
>>> http://people.linux-vserver.org/~bonbons/ipv6/
>>> But there isn't such a patch for our kernel/vserver combination.
>>>
>>
>>
>>> I also note some discussion on your mailing list here that you are
>>> getting ready to release a new *stable* vs release.
>>
>> we are on the verge to a devel release, which will be
>> the basis for further stabilization and testing which
>> should ultimately result in a new stable release, but
>> there are quite some things to do till then, and till
>> now the interest in helping with testing is quite low,
>> so it might take a while ...
>>
>>
>>> Depending on when that is to be available, maybe we should be
>>> considering that one too.
>>>
>>
>> you might consider a recent 2.6.31/32 kernel and patch
>> as it will be the basis for that upcoming stable, and
>> simply switch to that stable version once it is available
>>
>>
>>> I have some questions whose answers should help decide among the
>>> possibilities:
>>>
>>
>>
>>> - Is there a way to determine what user impacting changes there
>>> are between the version we are on and some newer version, say
>>> patch-2.6.22.19-vs2.3.0.34.diff?
>>>
>>
>> that's not really 'newer' it is just a different branch,
>> same kernel/time ....
>>
>>
>>> (I have looked at the change logs, but I can't easily extrapolate
>>> how those changes would affect existing user code.)
>>>
>>
>> most likely there are no effects at all
>>
>>
>>> - Would it make *any* sense to try porting one of the IPv6 patches
>>> to vs2.2.0.5???
>>>
>>
>> not really, but feel free to do so if you like :)
>>
>>
>>> - When do you expect to release the next stable version?
>>>
>>
>> when it's ready ... feel free to speed that up by donations
>> or contributions (mostly time or resources)
>>
>>
>>> - What kernels with that next stable version support?
>>>
>>
>> most likely 2.6.31+
>>
>>
>>> - How will this stable version differ from vs2.3.0.34?
>>>
>>
>> it will be thoroughly tested, have full CFS integration
>> and no known bugs :)
>>
>> HTH,
>> Herbert
>>
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Paul (Kyzivat)
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Mon Jan 11 14:41:06 2010

[Next/Previous Months] [Main vserver Project Homepage] [Howto Subscribe/Unsubscribe] [Paul Sladen's vserver stuff]
Generated on Mon 11 Jan 2010 - 14:41:07 GMT by hypermail 2.1.8