From owner-freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 15 21:55:03 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AD5CC1C for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 21:55:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.ultra-secure.de (mail.ultra-secure.de [88.198.178.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90803D28 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 21:55:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 77653 invoked by uid 89); 15 Feb 2015 21:51:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.200?) (rainer@ultra-secure.de@217.71.83.52) by mail.ultra-secure.de with ESMTPA; 15 Feb 2015 21:51:18 -0000 From: Rainer Duffner Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Running FreeBSD 10.1 on Xen? Message-Id: <3DE2DD7E-8C5C-4291-A3BA-854625F11B0F@ultra-secure.de> Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 22:51:16 +0100 To: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) X-BeenThere: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of the freebsd port to xen - implementation and usage List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 21:55:03 -0000 Hi, we are thinking about running FreeBSD 10.1 on Cloudstack, with Xen = virtualization for a customer in a =E2=80=9Emanaged hosting=E2=80=9C = type of setup - we are administrators of both Xen and FreeBSD on our = own premises). The customer is currently running a managed multi-server FreeBSD 10.1 = setup on bare metal and is overall quite satisfied but would like to = have more flexibility. The handbook mentions nothing about this, there are two different wiki = pages about Xen: https://wiki.freebsd.org/FreeBSD/XenNG (which I assume is the =E2=80=9Eright=E2=80=9C one nowadays) and https://wiki.freebsd.org/FreeBSD/Xen I=E2=80=99m really more a FreeBSD-guy than a Xen guy but I=E2=80=99m = wondering what the =E2=80=9Eoptimal=E2=80=9C configuration for such a = setup is? I see that the XENHVM driver is thankfully already included in GENERIC. The man-page also mentions to include: options NO_ADAPTIVE_MUTEXES options NO_ADAPTIVE_RWLOCKS options NO_ADAPTIVE_SX Is this still necessary with 10.1? I want to continue using freebsd-update(8) with binary patches provided = by the FreeBSD-project - under almost all conditions. Will there be any improvements in 10.2 that are worth waiting for? Or does one need to track current to make the most of FreeBSD under Xen? Looking at bugzilla, there is bug: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D197344 Does that also apply when a VM doesn=E2=80=99t do routing? Rainer From owner-freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 15 22:44:01 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74DD1636 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 22:44:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58CCB188 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 22:44:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t1FMi1pY003402 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 22:44:01 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 188369] [xen] [panic] FreeBSD 10 XENHVM panic under NetBSD Dom0 (xn_txeof: WARNING: response is -1) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 22:44:01 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: unspecified X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: miguelmclara@gmail.com X-Bugzilla-Status: In Progress X-Bugzilla-Priority: Normal X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of the freebsd port to xen - implementation and usage List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 22:44:01 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D188369 --- Comment #12 from miguelmclara@gmail.com --- UPDATE: I've been trying to bisect with git, so far I tried only to bisect = the changes here: https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/commits/stable/10/sys/xen/xen_intr.h As they seem to affect netback/front and xn_intr All three commit after and including the following are "bad": Improve the Xen para-virtualized device infrastructure of FreeBSD: =E2=80=A6 gibbs authored on Oct 19, 2010 831bbfa=20=20 The one before is the same "version" runnning on stable/9 it seems. also disabling txcsum stops the panic when I try ssh-in but I stil see the "xn_txeof: WARNING: response is -1" message and it eventually times out. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.= From owner-freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 16 00:43:06 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90C762DD for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 00:43:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-la0-f46.google.com (mail-la0-f46.google.com [209.85.215.46]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AA15DCA for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 00:43:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by labpv20 with SMTP id pv20so25318051lab.8 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 16:43:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=gzThbWWN/DRoQ3Ld08fRrpFU0PjVFWzEGn2KZtVjeK0=; b=JazbEHEu35VIZU2pefzIzofXRy3YGUIEsygQiYPV5K3RkFk/eF0j5zkZelwfDq7Dz9 8i+iiqj32LjqKlhsA6Soplsv2fwrtqIs45iQzfENtuL9+eiZPnyeIlATmnGL2d/og2HI 9SihjJ2eNSeiCvqZ2ogzgp3nCSQzEHa0WBeqbX5kfXzA04q5DI3PfhcyiU2UsWS9KuvA X33v9asr2gK2kCWOxsqvHLNDuM+X8uNdS7c5BfyCDwWzSl4SdiKA6zTz3hDjObx6H8K/ ZRZLWC6IgY/FDkCKA2nx/ntzLtzLDa/lgtxBrW843ILC9uzZaOtXL+XQpPU+ZMP/DPa2 wG9g== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.13.38 with SMTP id e6mr19633789lbc.31.1424047383554; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 16:43:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.152.6.134 with HTTP; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 16:43:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <3DE2DD7E-8C5C-4291-A3BA-854625F11B0F@ultra-secure.de> References: <3DE2DD7E-8C5C-4291-A3BA-854625F11B0F@ultra-secure.de> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 11:43:03 +1100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Running FreeBSD 10.1 on Xen? From: Outback Dingo To: Rainer Duffner Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.18-1 Cc: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of the freebsd port to xen - implementation and usage List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 00:43:06 -0000 On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Rainer Duffner wrote: > Hi, > > we are thinking about running FreeBSD 10.1 on Cloudstack, with Xen > virtualization for a customer in a =E2=80=9Emanaged hosting=E2=80=9C type= of setup - we are > administrators of both Xen and FreeBSD on our own premises). > The customer is currently running a managed multi-server FreeBSD 10.1 > setup on bare metal and is overall quite satisfied but would like to have > more flexibility. > > The handbook mentions nothing about this, there are two different wiki > pages about Xen: > > https://wiki.freebsd.org/FreeBSD/XenNG > (which I assume is the =E2=80=9Eright=E2=80=9C one nowadays) > and > https://wiki.freebsd.org/FreeBSD/Xen > > I=E2=80=99m really more a FreeBSD-guy than a Xen guy but I=E2=80=99m wond= ering what the > =E2=80=9Eoptimal=E2=80=9C configuration for such a setup is? > > I see that the XENHVM driver is thankfully already included in GENERIC. > The man-page also mentions to include: > > options NO_ADAPTIVE_MUTEXES > options NO_ADAPTIVE_RWLOCKS > options NO_ADAPTIVE_SX > > Is this still necessary with 10.1? > > I want to continue using freebsd-update(8) with binary patches provided b= y > the FreeBSD-project - under almost all conditions. > > Will there be any improvements in 10.2 that are worth waiting for? > Or does one need to track current to make the most of FreeBSD under Xen? > > Looking at bugzilla, there is bug: > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D197344 > > Does that also apply when a VM doesn=E2=80=99t do routing? > > Short answer, it works, ive launched images based on FreeBSD 10.1, and CURRENT with CloudStack, and OpenStack, using xen 4.4, and XenServer using the stock generic kernel for install... > > > Rainer > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-xen@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-xen > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-xen-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" From owner-freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 18 13:51:46 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2CCCEA3 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 13:51:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 887DEB98 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 13:51:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t1IDpk5r016828 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 13:51:46 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 188261] [xen] FreeBSD DomU PVHVM guests cannot 'route' traffic for other Xen PV guests on same Dom0 Host. Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 13:51:46 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 9.2-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: kpielorz@tdx.co.uk X-Bugzilla-Status: In Progress X-Bugzilla-Priority: Normal X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of the freebsd port to xen - implementation and usage List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 13:51:46 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188261 --- Comment #3 from kpielorz@tdx.co.uk --- I just re-tested this with: - XenServer 6.5 - FreeBSD 10.1 amd64 Installing FreeBSD in PVHVM mode (i.e. with 'xn0' NIC etc.) - and the problem still exists (incase anyone else runs into it) - there's been a least a couple of other people run into this issue setting up VM's for routing etc. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. From owner-freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 18 18:07:28 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BF5A582 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 18:07:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ceph.ap-linux.com (ceph.ap-linux.com [108.61.178.110]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B553BEA1 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 18:07:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ceph.ap-linux.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ceph.ap-linux.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2439F1770E8 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 19:01:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.1.3] (zid.claresco.hr [89.201.163.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mlerota@pdsvelebit.hr) by ceph.ap-linux.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E89C61770CC for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 19:01:20 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <54E4D37A.7010905@pdsvelebit.hr> Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 19:01:30 +0100 From: Marko Lerota User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [Bug 188261] [xen] FreeBSD DomU PVHVM guests cannot 'route' traffic for other Xen PV guests on same Dom0 Host. References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP on ceph.ap-linux.com X-BeenThere: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of the freebsd port to xen - implementation and usage List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 18:07:28 -0000 On 02/18/15 14:51, bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org wrote: > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188261 > > --- Comment #3 from kpielorz@tdx.co.uk --- > I just re-tested this with: > > - XenServer 6.5 > - FreeBSD 10.1 amd64 > > Installing FreeBSD in PVHVM mode (i.e. with 'xn0' NIC etc.) - and the problem > still exists (incase anyone else runs into it) - there's been a least a couple > of other people run into this issue setting up VM's for routing etc. And there is a problem with disk speed also. Xenserver is no FreeBSD friendly. From owner-freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 18 19:44:55 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE891F30 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 19:44:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ig0-x22c.google.com (mail-ig0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFB90D55 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 19:44:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ig0-f172.google.com with SMTP id l13so39040676iga.5 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:44:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=5j/WFQw/ePE55kvfZYQHY7KSFV2z1NM191BZMKCmb0I=; b=k8PgX33ClSEMAI2H8mmU4NJIgBuzCu1dX2y2mO6En/ltQKCP92iav0tvHQ5P+rHjCQ Vgtp8UfjL9oBR1YLFRt42H1xPglSzrpnsXWXlEmmwnq2iAaeG6sImNzlzViTbPaB/Cfj Y2d9/7TzsxdQuhq5ZhKOEKX+4PcLWDTDootN7pPr9Gpc+C1r8Ov/GYyvskqS8jnl39i8 +k2FnAbKRLQGTlRjK/0tXUxGPVDMTTiaOIVJYKaFPfWRThr+4vJUF4BEvYwbZhepW0Ot 6sp3on5+t3hYovSL86OnP7ftYjXyBtpcvcKL/bcsXccJT6gJN6xE2SvEOKOKoHCNtS52 JAeg== X-Received: by 10.42.169.200 with SMTP id c8mr2038793icz.40.1424288695211; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:44:55 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.64.120.35 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:44:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54E4D37A.7010905@pdsvelebit.hr> References: <54E4D37A.7010905@pdsvelebit.hr> From: Miguel Clara Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 19:44:34 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Bug 188261] [xen] FreeBSD DomU PVHVM guests cannot 'route' traffic for other Xen PV guests on same Dom0 Host. To: Marko Lerota Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.18-1 Cc: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of the freebsd port to xen - implementation and usage List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 19:44:56 -0000 On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Marko Lerota wrote: > > > On 02/18/15 14:51, bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org wrote: > >> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188261 >> >> --- Comment #3 from kpielorz@tdx.co.uk --- >> I just re-tested this with: >> >> - XenServer 6.5 >> - FreeBSD 10.1 amd64 >> >> Installing FreeBSD in PVHVM mode (i.e. with 'xn0' NIC etc.) - and the >> problem >> still exists (incase anyone else runs into it) - there's been a least a >> couple >> of other people run into this issue setting up VM's for routing etc. >> > > And there is a problem with disk speed also. Xenserver is no FreeBSD > friendly. > > I don't even have network with FreeBSD on and XenSource NetBSD host... I think the main issue is really the xennet(back/front) code in 10, since I have no issue in 9. See: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188369 Would be awesome if someone with good xennet(back/front) knowledge could look into it, and maybe the same for the disk part. Under a linux dom0 network works and tbh I havent tested later but disk performance still could use some improvements. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-xen@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-xen > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-xen-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > From owner-freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 18 19:50:12 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE58E289 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 19:50:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ig0-x233.google.com (mail-ig0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B5B5E4B for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 19:50:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ig0-f179.google.com with SMTP id l13so4373697iga.0 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:50:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=VfsjrL6X/5LMOJfTru7yhUCrO31b+0wLVyXYrjzmCqc=; b=Lkh416fjpCVgpDMnoSj3M5G4sxH0PNkZAtaZ97dTG5574UKOE7tu+qWmuPOSd8PtLZ dOTrtIan/+wXdwKSXp5TFNvhwDHNJKr9i7yDLfiJs2b9g21Yt74Mj2+Nr3NIYfzkBbDy 9ySbjDW6k0CeIMvf7q6gTxz0PJ/3Akg3f1mOXlFLkvoQgqdm4V+Dmp8nrFRv6dAEk+Bl LV64rp++krF/aXK9p1NBe3kyL+ISOMn59hoTtSbUvoj8GOwlFMVikDA3TaB8KGZ+NXal 9pSVyXCo0ipLNJm5yQ6upPl+UJM7+txPH7fULhxu9XHAVwPIiBLl81SKyI7fJYC0IdbY 5B7Q== X-Received: by 10.50.253.12 with SMTP id zw12mr5062195igc.24.1424289009963; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:50:09 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.64.91.233 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:49:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <54E4D37A.7010905@pdsvelebit.hr> From: Michael MacLeod Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:49:49 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Bug 188261] [xen] FreeBSD DomU PVHVM guests cannot 'route' traffic for other Xen PV guests on same Dom0 Host. To: Miguel Clara Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.18-1 Cc: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of the freebsd port to xen - implementation and usage List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 19:50:12 -0000 I've been using the OSS Xen releases for years, and have never been able to get PVM domU to be functional as a gateway - I've either had to use HVM or setup a separate box as the router. This has been the case since at least FBSD8 I think, or whenever XENHVM became an option. On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Miguel Clara wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Marko Lerota > wrote: > > > > > > > On 02/18/15 14:51, bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org wrote: > > > >> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188261 > >> > >> --- Comment #3 from kpielorz@tdx.co.uk --- > >> I just re-tested this with: > >> > >> - XenServer 6.5 > >> - FreeBSD 10.1 amd64 > >> > >> Installing FreeBSD in PVHVM mode (i.e. with 'xn0' NIC etc.) - and the > >> problem > >> still exists (incase anyone else runs into it) - there's been a least a > >> couple > >> of other people run into this issue setting up VM's for routing etc. > >> > > > > And there is a problem with disk speed also. Xenserver is no FreeBSD > > friendly. > > > > > I don't even have network with FreeBSD on and XenSource NetBSD host... I > think the main issue is really the xennet(back/front) code in 10, since I > have no issue in 9. > > See: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188369 > > Would be awesome if someone with good xennet(back/front) knowledge could > look into it, and maybe the same for the disk part. > > Under a linux dom0 network works and tbh I havent tested later but disk > performance still could use some improvements. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > freebsd-xen@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-xen > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-xen-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-xen@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-xen > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-xen-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > From owner-freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 19 15:20:27 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E44ABC2 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 15:20:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.tdx.com (mail.tdx.com [62.13.128.18]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23A9D30E for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 15:20:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.12.30.106] (vpn01-01.tdx.co.uk [62.13.130.213]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.tdx.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/) with ESMTP id t1JFHd6m027189 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 19 Feb 2015 15:17:39 GMT Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 15:17:38 +0000 From: Karl Pielorz To: Michael MacLeod , Miguel Clara Subject: Re: [Bug 188261] [xen] FreeBSD DomU PVHVM guests cannot 'route' traffic for other Xen PV guests on same Dom0 Host. Message-ID: <96E16668BD46052D41141B94@[10.12.30.106]> In-Reply-To: References: <54E4D37A.7010905@pdsvelebit.hr> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Cc: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of the freebsd port to xen - implementation and usage List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 15:20:27 -0000 --On 18 February 2015 14:49 -0500 Michael MacLeod wrote: > I've been using the OSS Xen releases for years, and have never been able > to get PVM domU to be functional as a gateway - I've either had to use > HVM or setup a separate box as the router. This has been the case since > at least FBSD8 I think, or whenever XENHVM became an option. As the original bug filer... I've tried FBSD 9, 10 and 11 - I was hoping (under the "you never know" banner) that XS 6.5 with updated Xen etc. might make a difference - but sadly it doesn't, as people have pointed out - it's a likely issue with netfront/back code in FBSD. This is a real pain for us - apart from the hours initially wasted figuring it out - and the 'accidents' when people forget, we either have a bunch of non-agile machines polluting our main pools, or a secondary "pool of shame" where all the FBSD boxes that do things like VPN, routing, DHCP, firewalling are running in HVM mode [and again, not agile]. Performance of HVM NIC's and disk isn't as good as PV either (as you'd expect). I have the stuff to test this setup in house here - I just don't know where to start to look at it :( - but open to suggestions ;) Cheers, -Karl From owner-freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 20 14:35:43 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7ABBF40 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 14:35:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D17A2E2 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 14:35:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t1KEZhrp012732 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 14:35:43 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 188261] [xen] FreeBSD DomU PVHVM guests cannot 'route' traffic for other Xen PV guests on same Dom0 Host. Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 14:35:42 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 9.2-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: sbruno@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: In Progress X-Bugzilla-Priority: Normal X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of the freebsd port to xen - implementation and usage List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 14:35:43 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188261 Sean Bruno changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sbruno@FreeBSD.org --- Comment #4 from Sean Bruno --- I use an HVM based VM in the rootbsd cloud. Recently on -current I had to disable rxcsum and txcsum on my vm interfaces to make it "happy" with PF ifconfig_xn0="inet XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX netmask 0xfffffffc -rxcsum -txcsum" Maybe try that? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. From owner-freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 20 17:02:37 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DC7F212 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:02:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 627A9974 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:02:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t1KH2ben093506 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:02:37 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 188261] [xen] FreeBSD DomU PVHVM guests cannot 'route' traffic for other Xen PV guests on same Dom0 Host. Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:02:36 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 9.2-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: mikemacleod@gmail.com X-Bugzilla-Status: In Progress X-Bugzilla-Priority: Normal X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of the freebsd port to xen - implementation and usage List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:02:37 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188261 Michael MacLeod changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mikemacleod@gmail.com --- Comment #5 from Michael MacLeod --- Issues with checksums on XENHVM kernels and the ability to route traffic between XENHVM guests are separate. RootBSD appears to use Cisco switches - at least if the MAC address of the gateway for my RootBSD guest is to be believed. You wouldn't run the gateway for an entire cloud infrastructure off a FreeBSD VM regardless. For the record, I've been using the OSS Xen releases for years, and have never been able to get PVM (XENHVM) domU to be functional as a gateway - I've either had to use HVM or setup a separate box as the router. This has been the case since at least FBSD8 I think, or whenever XENHVM became an option. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.