SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

May 2015

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Nico Kadel-Garcia <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Nico Kadel-Garcia <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 20 May 2015 00:14:22 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (29 lines)
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 11:16 PM, ToddAndMargo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I have filed a number of bugs against KVM and EL6 in the
> past two weeks.  Inevitably, the response comes back
> that it is fixed or going to be fixed in EL7, but not
> in EL6.
>
> Am I to presume that despite the promise of support till
> 2020 that KVM has abandoned further development on
> EL6?
>
> Many thanks,
> -T

As a server? Why would you bother to continue to run that on SL6 or
EL6, when SL7 and EL7 are more likely to be able to run far more
recent operating guest operating systems effectively? The 'qemu-kvm'
module jumped from 0.12.1 in SL6 to 1.5.3 for SL7 virt-manager jumped
from 0.10.0 to 1.1.0, along with other components. So why burn time
backporting fixes, or expecting a backport of a kernel sensitive major
upgrade, when you can use  the more recent base OS for a similar
licensing price?

Now, separatley, near as I can tell, KVM got shot through the head by
the user interface. virt-manager is just not as good as some of the
other closed tools, like the Windows based XenCenter client and
VMware's clunky but well established GUI.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2