[arch-general] Why move LTS to 5.10 when VirtualBox guests Kernel Panic with 5.10?

Ralf Mardorf silver.bullet at zoho.com
Thu Feb 18 00:15:18 UTC 2021

On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 17:48:54 -0300, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote:
>Em fevereiro 17, 2021 15:50 Ralf Mardorf via arch-general escreveu:
>> It's exactly the other way round. Virtualbox is a painless out of the
>> box solution satisfying a lot of needs. Only if you have a very
>> special need, consider to migrate to something less comfortable such
>> as KVM.
>What part of using libvirt with virt-manager isn't "out of the box"?


maybe the OP has got a reason to chose Virtualbox in the first
place, but the OP might be willing to migrate to virt-manager with KVM,
where everything is or is not hassle-free. There's no need for an
off-topic discussion, I'm not affected anyway.

>> And if virtualbox performs adequate you gain absolutely nothing from
>> those performance gains, but you'll lose all the out of the box
>> features virtualbox provides, such as file sharing without any
>> effort. 
>Virtualbox performance is not even comparable with qemu-kvm. They are
>on different leagues.

I never question it, it's just that if somebody should run Virtualbox
to e.g. get a single Windows program running, that doesn't work with
wine and there should be no performance issues when running that
program in a Virtualbox guest, better performance doesn't matter, since
it's not needed at all. I'm well aware that a lot of other use cases are
possible, that make KVM a better choice, but I don't remember that the
OP asked for a VM with better performance.

As long as 4.19 is longterm supported and I shouldn't change my
hardware and/or Linux computer usage, I stay with 4.19 rt patched
kernels I build myself. For users with different needs and/or different
hardware this doesn't make sense.

Btw. those using kernels from the repositories would be wise to use
"IgnorePkg list, and upgrade them only in a strictly controlled way",
e.g. as long as linux 5.11 is in testing and linux and linux-lts are
both 5.10 ;). I suspect Jens John won't encourage users to hold back
kernel updates, he probably just wanted to point out that even a
rolling release might be used for a production environment and holding
back a kernel update when being busy, is different to partial
upgrades of other packages.


More information about the arch-general mailing list