WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] Re: VT-X processors , xen 3.0 , drives and virtualizatio

To: Charles Duffy <cduffy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: VT-X processors , xen 3.0 , drives and virtualization (in 32 bit environment)
From: Ian Brown <ianbrn@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:09:22 -0500
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:13:23 +0000
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=b5Pm5y/d80FkmPLVx6+ZAZtq/h0Ss2nIs0396BxxRcFWZUTDMsTIUgJVSIRQFzsPOSfJQysJdEwL0izCjGx1QesWMI0x1LONlP5zmw7So6grdZsIkQwfmichXU2N1c2EUq94K9vqY0boX9Y4TjDVOu8cpALL+JLkfYwBzFXn6Zw=
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <dorcrb$3j8$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <d0383f90512270103q6d9d1957l951220f32f2755ec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <dorcrb$3j8$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hello,
  Ok, Thnks,this clears a lot about the first question.

Still, I will be grateful if I get any feedback on the second question
: performance overhead of running more than one Linux OS instance on
these VT-processors :
did anybody tried it and can comment on it / give some data / compare to
non VT processors
(which have aboutb 3% performance overhead) ? I would expect that
somebody had tried using these
VT chips (even they are still (maybe) in beta stage ).

Regards,
IB


On 12/27/05, Charles Duffy <cduffy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Ian Brown wrote:
> >  1) True to now and the current xen-3.0 version: When running Xen 3.0
> >  on these VT processors, can we run an unmodified kernel ?
>
> For your DomUs, yes. For your Dom0, no. Running a modified DomU kernel
> should be more performant.
>
> >  and in such a case, what about the device drivers - isn't there a
> >  problem with them ?
>
> Emulated hardware, based off of drivers borrowed from QEMU, is provided
> to VMX domains. The drivers they need will be for the emulated cards,
> not for the real devices in the machine.
>
> > I mean , in practical terms , if I will set my bootloader to have the
> > following entry on a machine with VT-x processor:
> >  kernel /xen.gz dom0_mem=x
> >  module /vmlinuz-#version ro root=...
> >  (and initrd if needed)
>
> No, that won't work, because that's trying to use an unmodified kernel
> as Dom0.
>
> > will I be
> > able to create a new domain based also on unmodified vmlinuz-#version
> > kernel ?
>
> Yes, though VMX domains work a bit differently from non-VMX ones -- the
> process won't be exactly the same except with a non-Xen-enabled kernel.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel