From owner-freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Fri Jan 29 05:53:28 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-virtualization@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31000A71E79 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 05:53:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from neelnatu@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wm0-x233.google.com (mail-wm0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::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 E351C1CB9; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 05:53:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from neelnatu@gmail.com) Received: by mail-wm0-x233.google.com with SMTP id p63so53729783wmp.1; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 21:53:27 -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=H2ApXLU4VaGaBEznXUvl/aMa7CSPLegNCmx7SvgHoS8=; b=skPAFtodUl6BGNAlxzwkgScNVBtKge7znxeK0VBp/c18sBPiMeTlhC4VHhKfIXcLSV ZeYUEwDzlMTVeE3Ue/vL9BXnAJQMe+8KBP3zlm6BsrSjQ8zdx29gC8QW+JVq0yvClpzs MYYccK5y+zVGlboS/Wjnx9j3DhS4i1EaQM719fZhyq5qv72WRZjoMjynpUcB8PemieRe WibHXdbvqm1ySTMaU1UDLGvFn2au2Ie15PWO/ReAuFt6kr9FGVGKkIjwnupIXqKx59n5 VguJ+scpCOgYOvEqJCT/p+1e7Hg14bGplWezZYw7kJnhr4jgFDz1WXlT2IDWjfGCjtKQ n++Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=H2ApXLU4VaGaBEznXUvl/aMa7CSPLegNCmx7SvgHoS8=; b=dLfVa5VfAVg4IvlmQE9mw/g+ZTnlf6v7FOirkwF70bD6IrMyoGI45gNg5ss9+Tgezh wsu57lS5vPzJkjWfx60Gxg+//chPRp6Ar8RlnPO7mrmtIlADCOmqBo8mVDgBv+DtVj+1 5x8VWF/jnj+yvF58/iOiF+rgwkWEz3QWFAcW41qcoQBUODN1MTspzFLh1yThBz7R4p1y ZImwaifF0sgDHW02RdBKgzJUQ9sxvL8bz+DOEfAnpSU1HaohpBmTF/7U++dfaVOp6lJ7 XTCIqE8NvbFo8ge9bho+sZjLNYRrpIC/l2XBKQlL2pnQBfaTE+RYrBb28ZZtu4yQ8SR6 mkqA== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOS4t17hY2Yu4lut6R2YwHPhg2zA4JEutJlPsWvD4ZiSoFDMr2msiXWAxghvCmYlFtstwWsIdy8zJ3MTbA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.28.57.214 with SMTP id g205mr6556893wma.20.1454046806312; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 21:53:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.27.81.84 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 21:53:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <56AAF721.4080009@freebsd.org> References: <790acf0350e0f10e79b4120e564a553c@dweimer.net> <20160126230338.GM4109@debian.ara-ler.com> <9ee895854c862cccc0bcc84c16eee063@dweimer.net> <20160127021348.GE1799@dendrobates.araler.com> <94df01924b1843c39aaf29a47a4fa2da@dweimer.net> <56AAF721.4080009@freebsd.org> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 21:53:26 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bhyve with Linux guest, how to safely handle updates? From: Neel Natu To: Julian Elischer Cc: dweimer@dweimer.net, "freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-BeenThere: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of various virtualization techniques FreeBSD supports." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 05:53:28 -0000 Hi Julian, On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Julian Elischer wrote: > On 29/01/2016 3:13 AM, Neel Natu wrote: >> >> Hi Dean, >> >> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:55 AM, dweimer wrote: >>> >>> On 2016-01-26 8:13 pm, Sergey Manucharian wrote: >>>> >>>> Excerpts from dweimer's message from Tue 26-Jan-16 19:07: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Is there anything that normally needs to be done after a Linux kernel >>>>> update to refresh the grub2-bhyve setup? >>>> >>>> >>>> The kernel update should not have any effect since grub-bhyve uses the >>>> virtual disk mapping file, which should point to your linux drive. >>>> >>>> I'm using the following command: >>>> >>>> $ sudo grub-bhyve -m /path/to/device.map -r hd0,msdos1 -M 1024M debian >>>> >>>> where "device.map" contains the following: >>>> >>>> (hd0) /dev/zvol/zroot/linuxdisk1 >>>> (cd0) /stuff/vm/bhyve/debian/debian-testing-amd64-2015-11-30.iso >>>> >>>> "hd0" can be a real disk device, e.g. /dev/sda, or an image file (in >>>> my case it's a ZFS volume). >>>> >>>> How do you use that VM in VBox? If it's a .vdi file, bhyve will not be >>>> able to recognize it. You should use a raw HDD image file. To make it >>>> compatible with VBox you can create a .vmdk file pointing to that raw >>>> image. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Sergey >>> >>> >>> I am back to testing again, copied my ZFS Boot Environment over to a >>> VMware >>> virtual machine, renamed it and changed IPs, removed the virtual box >>> stuff, >>> and enabled bhyve. >>> >>> I did some searching and found out that I was using >>> https://github.com/churchers/vm-bhyve to manage the bhyve virtual >>> machines >>> starting and stopping. Sticking with zvol for disk backing, I know its >>> less >>> portable. >>> >>> I have been able to install a couple of debian virtual machines and play >>> around with them. So far I have been unable to duplicate the issue I had >>> before. My current issue which maybe related to running inside a VMware >>> virtual machine. Is the Linux hwclock and system clock sync issues. If I >>> power off the vm and reboot it it believes that the disk was modified in >>> the >>> future and appears to hang. Its actually doing a fsck I just don't see >>> status if you wait long enough it finally does come up. >>> >>> Has anyone else ran into this issue? I have actually ran the hwclock >>> -systohc --utc prior to powering down and still had the issue. Tried >>> changing the hwclock to system time by excluding the --utc from the >>> command >>> no change. Incidentally whether I use the --utc or not the hwclock --show >>> always displays the local time. I couldn't seem to find any documentation >>> on >>> bhyve whether or not I should tell the guests that the hwclock is in utc >>> or >>> local time. >>> >> The "-u" option of bhyve(8) will configure the RTC to present UTC time >> to the guest (default is localtime). > > wouldn't it be best if the -u option had an argument to give the offsett? > I had this problem with two windows hosts that were supposed to be in > different timezones. > I worked around it but... > Yes, it would be more flexible. FWIW the underlying vmmapi call and the ioctl don't need to change (i.e. the changes would be limited to bhyve(9)). best Neel > >> >> best >> Neel >> >>> -- >>> Thanks, >>> Dean E. Weimer >>> http://www.dweimer.net/ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list >>> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization >>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to >>> "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list >> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to >> "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> >