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 188.8.131.52
> - patch-184.108.40.206-vs220.127.116.11.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 18.104.22.168
> - patch-22.214.171.124-vs126.96.36.199.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-188.8.131.52-vs2.01.diff. When
> we migrated to patch-184.108.40.206-vs220.127.116.11.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:
> 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
> - Is there a way to determine what user impacting changes there
> are between the version we are on and some newer version, say
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 vs18.104.22.168???
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 vs22.214.171.124?
it will be thoroughly tested, have full CFS integration
and no known bugs :)
> Paul (Kyzivat)
Received on Mon Jan 11 15:56:30 2010