From: Matthew B. <mat...@so...> - 2002-11-13 23:39:16
|
[posted to the User Mode Linux list for obvious reasons, and the UKBloggers list because people there are always after cheap hosting and doing twisted things in the name of web creativity] Hello; We're starting trials of a new (to us <g>) hosting product and are after some technically competent people who have something interesting they could use it for. The product is a virtual Linux server, virtual because what you get is not a co-located machine, but an instance of User Mode Linux running on our host. The deal is this; we give you a (virtual) Linux server on a with 64MB RAM, 3GB disc space (excluding the space for a default Debian 2.2 or Redhat 8.3 install), a single IP address, and 2GB monthly bandwidth allowance. It'll be hosted on a multi-homed network in Docklands (transfers are very quick indeed) and free of charge for 3 months, during which time we'll be developing the service, asking for occasional feedback, and launching it commercially. You should tell us that you've got an interesting project that wants hosting and that you know your way around a Linux system, or would like to use it to learn. We want triallists who will flex their systems, and use them for interesting, intensive or random applications. If you need more IPs, RAM, disc space etc. we can arrange it within our available resources. It's a free trial, so of course you get your money back if your machine goes down :) After the trial ends, we anticipate that prices will range from 10 to 50 pounds per month, mainly depending on how much RAM you want, though of course any favours, good publicity that your host generates for us will be taken into account if you want to continue with your virtual machine. So if you'd like a machine, drop me a note and tell me: *) what you want it for, in as much detail as possible *) what you want your machine to be called, the reverse DNS name Assuming we don't get more than a few people interested, you should get some details through within a few days. cheers, -- Matthew Bloch Bytemark Computer Consulting Limited http://www.bytemark.co.uk/ tel. +44 (0) 8707 455026 |
From: Christopher S. A. <ca...@th...> - 2002-11-14 01:44:13
|
Hello, I'd first like to thank Jeff, and all those working on UML - it's a very exciting project. I'd like to know what the state of stability UML is in. I understand that there are two different modes of operation, tt (old), and skas (in dev). What is the stability rating (say on a 1-10 scale, where 10 = the stability of current x86 code) for tt, and skas. I guess why I'm asking is to get a better idea of how stable UML is for production purposes, and to get a better idea of *when* UML would be production ready. Thanks, -Chris |
From: Net Llama! <net...@li...> - 2002-11-14 01:50:09
|
On 11/13/2002 05:45 PM, Christopher S. Aker wrote: > Hello, > > I'd first like to thank Jeff, and all those working on UML - it's a very exciting > project. > > I'd like to know what the state of stability UML is in. I understand that there > are two different modes of operation, tt (old), and skas (in dev). What is the > stability rating (say on a 1-10 scale, where 10 = the stability of current x86 > code) for tt, and skas. I guess why I'm asking is to get a better idea of how > stable UML is for production purposes, and to get a better idea of *when* UML > would be production ready. It really depends on alot of factors. I've got two UML production servers running with RH-7.3 as the host, and 2.4.18-36 as the UML kernel, and both have been very reliable. However, i've had sporadic problems with uml_switch where its self-terminated on occasion. It might help if you explained how you were plannning to use UML. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ L. Friedman net...@li... Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo: http://netllama.ipfox.com 5:45pm up 32 days, 7:00, 2 users, load average: 0.04, 0.14, 0.29 |
From: Steve B. <st...@sn...> - 2002-11-15 06:51:20
Attachments:
uml_switch_segfault.patch
|
Sounds like you had the same problem as me with uml_switch. Here's the patch I posted on uml-devel which solves the problem for me. Don't know if Jeff will be including it in the next release of uml_utilities. Cheers, Steve Net Llama! wrote: > On 11/13/2002 05:45 PM, Christopher S. Aker wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > I'd first like to thank Jeff, and all those working on UML - it's a > > very exciting > > project. > > > > I'd like to know what the state of stability UML is in. I understand > > that there > > are two different modes of operation, tt (old), and skas (in dev). > > What is the > > stability rating (say on a 1-10 scale, where 10 = the stability of > > current x86 > > code) for tt, and skas. I guess why I'm asking is to get a better > > idea of how > > stable UML is for production purposes, and to get a better idea of > > *when* UML > > would be production ready. > > > It really depends on alot of factors. I've got two UML production > servers running with RH-7.3 as the host, and 2.4.18-36 as the UML > kernel, and both have been very reliable. However, i've had sporadic > problems with uml_switch where its self-terminated on occasion. It > might help if you explained how you were plannning to use UML. > |
From: Steven P. <st...@si...> - 2002-11-14 03:30:31
|
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 07:45:04PM -0600, Christopher S. Aker wrote: > I'd like to know what the state of stability UML is in. I understand > that there are two different modes of operation, tt (old), and skas > (in dev). What is the stability rating (say on a 1-10 scale, where 10 > = the stability of current x86 code) for tt, and skas. The UML kernel I'm using right now (2.4.19-16um, with a small patch Jeff posted to the list) would have to get a 10, with the small qualification that I only have 24 days uptime at most with it. (That kernel was released 25 or 26 days ago, if I'm not mistaken.) It seems like a lot of people on this list are having more trouble finding a stable host kernel. The Red Hat 2.4.18-based kernels seem to be working well for several of us. Steve -- st...@si... | Southern Illinois Linux Users Group (618)398-7360 | See web site for meeting details. Steven Pritchard | http://www.silug.org/ |
From: Net Llama! <net...@li...> - 2002-11-14 04:18:05
|
On 11/13/2002 07:30 PM, Steven Pritchard wrote: > On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 07:45:04PM -0600, Christopher S. Aker wrote: > >>I'd like to know what the state of stability UML is in. I understand >>that there are two different modes of operation, tt (old), and skas >>(in dev). What is the stability rating (say on a 1-10 scale, where 10 >>= the stability of current x86 code) for tt, and skas. > > > The UML kernel I'm using right now (2.4.19-16um, with a small patch > Jeff posted to the list) would have to get a 10, with the small > qualification that I only have 24 days uptime at most with it. (That > kernel was released 25 or 26 days ago, if I'm not mistaken.) > > It seems like a lot of people on this list are having more trouble > finding a stable host kernel. The Red Hat 2.4.18-based kernels seem > to be working well for several of us. I've had zero problems with Redhat's 2.4.18 kernel on the host. To add another data point, i've encountered "i'm tracing myself and can't get out" lockups in UMLs that were using the 2.4.19-6 kernel, yet no problems whatsoever with the 2.4.18-36 kernel. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ L. Friedman net...@li... Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo: http://netllama.ipfox.com 8:15pm up 32 days, 9:30, 2 users, load average: 0.01, 0.26, 0.53 |