On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 05:37:46PM +0200, Roman Vesely wrote:
> I am a sponsor and satisfied user of an excellent project
thanks, and good to hear!
> Nowadays I have been using distributive Vserver for Debian
> Etch and Lenny on more than 20 servers without any bigger
means the distro kernels/tools?
> I would like to start testing the last experimental version,
> but situation relates to current state of the project is
> very confusing and unnoticed for people who did not watch
> mailling list or irc in detail.
what confuses you?
> I prefer kernel for Debian. My questions are:
again, you mean distro kernels, yes?
> * What are the changes between version 22.214.171.124.27 which is
> in a current Squeezy and version 126.96.36.199.29.6?
I presume that you are again referring to the debian kernel
(188.8.131.52.27), so the problem there is, I do not know what
debian patched in addition to 184.108.40.206.27, but I can give
you a list of changes if you provide that patch
> Can I use distributive Squeezy version or are there any
> serious mistakes?
we know that the 'stable' debian kernels are horribly broken
but most of the testing kernels should probably be fine, give
or take a feature/bugfix
> * What are the changes between 220.127.116.11.29.x a 18.104.22.168.30.x ?
if you are referring to the patches against mainline, then
the changes are mostly in the way Linux-VServer integrates
with the mainline changes (regarding virtualization)
> * What are the changes between 22.214.171.124.30.x a 126.96.36.199.32.x?
same here, if you need precise details, just ask, there is
no official changelog for those
> * Is the table http://linux-vserver.org/Feature_Matrix which
> is 3 years old up-to-date?
probably not, but note that Linux-VServer is a quite mature
project, so the big number of changes happened like 8 years
ago and it is fairly feature complete since several years now
> * In which contidition or state is the implementation
> HardCPULimit in new experimental versions?
depends on the actual patch, before mainline introduced the
CFS scheduler (completely fair scheduler), we used the TBE
(token bucket extension) to handle fair distribution and
hard limits for guests, with the introduction of the quite
promising CFS scheduler, we gradually removed the TBE and
adopted the new design ... some versions incorporate an
experimental patch to allow for hard limits, but mainline
is working (or whatever they call it :) on a proper hard
limit implementation for almost a year now and the patches
are incomplete and outdated, so we do not include them in
> I intercede for a continous publishing of changes in the new
we do so for stable releases, but the experimental branch
is still in flux and maintaining accurate changelogs would
consume quite some time, but feel free to hang around on
the irc channel, ask about changes and document them as
some kind of changelog (which I'll gladly review and comment
> * Do you plane a stable release from experimental branche
> in a near future?
we have been planning to get there for quite some time now,
but the mainline virtualization effords cause quite some
fluctuation in the code areas we patch and so the kernel
itself becomes a moving target ...
stabilization involves testing and code review and there
is not much point in reviewing code which has to be changed
completely the next week
> * Will it be supported Debian Squeezy kernel?
no idea, probably a question for the debian folks
> If not it would be possible to make financial support?
I think it is more a political question than a financial
but as financial support is always welcome, that might
help as well :)
> Probably there are more people who would be interested in it.
I guess so, at least the percentage of debian users on
the Linux-VServer channel is quite hight
> Thank you a lot for your answers, I appreciate it,
> you save my time.
Received on Sat Sep 25 11:05:40 2010