Xen 
 
Home About Xen.org Xen Xen Summit Wiki Mailing List Bug Tracker Xen Downloads
 
   
 

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