On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 5:12 AM, Matej HALAC <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hello Gentlemen,
>
> we have two HP ProLiant DL380 G6 servers with Intel Xeon E5530
> processors running libvirt on SL(kernel 2.6.32-131.6.1.el6.x86_64) to
> host our Linux and Windows servers. (We migrated from Citrix XenServer)
I like the G6's, they seem to be nice hardware. Do you have those
ghods-awful Broadcom 10G network cards on them? The ones that try to
let you split up the 10G into a stack of different slices of
bandwidth? Those weren't stable enough to use last year, and I doubt
the drivers or the firmware on those cards has gotten any better.
I'm coming to the harsh conclusion that our favorite upstream vendor's
"KVM" toolkit is still not ready for production use, especially due to
the truly awful configuration tool. This was based on horrible
experience with their 5.5, 5.6, and 6.0 releases. If you have only a
few hosts to virtualize, why not test Oracle's "VirtualBox" tool
(which has far better configuration tools and good client
integration), or VMWare's well supported home editions? Since you seem
to be using freeware where feasible, such as
> The problem is that Windows servers (64bit) running on KVM crash
> periodically. With the following event log message:
> Error code 000000000000003b, parameter1 0000000080000003, parameter2
> fffff80001039900, parameter3 fffffadfe125fd50, parameter4
> 0000000000000000.
Have you done all the updates on both your base system and the
virtualized systems?
> The host servers have this in their dmesg that looks suspicious to me:
> Performance Events: PEBS fmt1+, Nehalem events, Broken BIOS detected,
> complain to your hardware vendor.
> [Firmware Bug]: the BIOS has corrupted hw-PMU resources (MSR 38d is
> 330)
>
> Also host servers get this message in the logs:
> kernel: kvm: 2323: cpu0 unimplemented perfctr wrmsr: 0xc1 data 0xabcd
>
> I myself have a ML150 G6 with Intel Xeon E5504 that runs SL6 and libvirt
> with a Windows server without a hitch.
>
> Any advice is appreciated since I tried looking for the solution and
> nothing helped me.
You get this on both servers? If you can spare the time, test one of
the other virtualization technologies.
|
