> > On Thu, Jan 12 '06 at 12:24, Ian Pratt wrote:
> > > You haven't connected dom0 directly to the bridge rather
> > than vif0.0
> > > to the bridge have you?
> > I've been doing that with xen 2.0 and xen 3.0.0, what's bad
> > about doing this?
>
> You shouldn't connect directly if you run services in dom0 for the
> domU's. Using vif0.0 prevents a possible deadlock.
>
I must be missing something here... doesn't the init script itself add
eth0 to xen-br0??? Does dom0 somehow internally create vif0.0 as a
mirror of eth0?
You said 'You haven't connected dom0 directly to the bridge rather than
vif0.0 to the bridge have you?'... I took that to mean 'You haven't
connected eth0 in dom0 directly to the bridge rather than vif0.0 to the
bridge have you?'... was that the right interpretation?
My DomU is a mail server, so it needs to connect to the external
network, not just Dom0.
Thanks
James
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel