Thank you very much for your advice and interest. HP sales support has
yet to get back to me with a list of models that support virtualization.
I assume the T9550 model at nearly $2K would do the trick, but that's
beyond my budget. I'm simply going to stick with what I bought.
My old winXp (to
On 09/27/2009 07:36 PM, Michael ODonnell wrote:
Not certain I understand what you're saying but processors in this family
come out of their power-on Reset state in their simplest, least capable
mode - interrupts disabled, MMU disabled, 20bit Real Mode addressing,
etc - and each increase in
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Jerry Feldman g...@blu.org wrote:
1. Most systems disable the VT extensions in the BIOS by default (AMD
and Intel) I have an AMD quad core Opteron with VMX, with a Tyan mother
board. The VMX bit shoed up in the processor flags (/proc/cpuinfo), but
I found it
On 09/28/2009 09:06 AM, Tom Buskey wrote:
Of all the hypervisors, I feel VirtualBox is the easiest to maintain.
I've done VMware Server, ESXi and played with KVM. I wonder about the
performance differences but not enough to test :-)
I agree. My company uses VMWare Workstation running under a
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Tom Buskey t...@buskey.name wrote:
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Jerry Feldman g...@blu.org wrote:
Of all the hypervisors, I feel VirtualBox is the easiest to maintain. I've
done VMware Server, ESXi and played with KVM. I wonder about the
performance
On Mon, 2009-09-28 at 08:17 -0400, Jerry Feldman wrote:
2. Under Linux your choices for VMMs (Virtual Machine Managers) are
basically KVM/QEMU, QEMU(software), Xen, Virtualbox, and VMWare. Xen
and KVM do use the virtualization hardware.
I was hoping to get myself a laptop where I could simply
On Monday 28 September 2009 08:17:38 am Jerry Feldman wrote:
needed because, in general, performance is more critical. I'm not sure
if Virtualbox supports 64-bit guests, but KVM/QEMU and VMWare certainly
do. Both KVM, QEMU, and Virtualbox are released via the GPL license. I'm
not sure about
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Thomas Charron twaf...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Tom Buskey t...@buskey.name wrote:
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Jerry Feldman g...@blu.org wrote:
Of all the hypervisors, I feel VirtualBox is the easiest to maintain.
I've
done
Ben Scott wrote:
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Thomas Charron twaf...@gmail.com wrote:
Intel's VT-x extensions *MUST* be enabled and supported by BIOS.
I'm not sure why ...
I seem to recall this facet of the design being sold as a security
feature. The scenario given was the
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Tom Buskey t...@buskey.name wrote:
Ben brings up a good point about a
possible security risk, but motherboard manufactures haven't worried about
it much in the past.
I believe it was Intel who crafted that design feature, not the mobo
mfgs. So inaction on
On this busy morning I've only had time to glance at some docs for SVM
(Secure Virtual Machine) support but it does appear that in some cases
external hardware (in the form of a TPM - the dread Trusted Platform
Module) can be involved in the prep and execution of the Secure Loader
and,
On Mon, 2009-09-28 at 11:25 -0400, Michael ODonnell wrote:
On this busy morning I've only had time to glance at some docs
I did not want to eat up people's time with this thread. I've wasted
far too much of my own time on this.
--
Lloyd Kvam
Venix Corp
DLSLUG/GNHLUG library
I did not want to eat up people's time with this thread.
This thread is interesting and something that I've been meaning to
learn more about so I was pleased to have an excuse to dig an old
CPU manual out of my desk midden.
___
gnhlug-discuss
Just to round out the thread..
As people have already stated, the intel VT optimizations are not required
to support virtualization, or even hypervisors. Vmware ESX is an example
of a decent hypervisor that does not require these CPU capabilities to be
present. KVM on the other hand requires
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Darrell Michaud dmich...@amergin.orgwrote:
Just to round out the thread..
As people have already stated, the intel VT optimizations are not required
to support virtualization, or even hypervisors. Vmware ESX is an example
of a decent hypervisor that does not
That's a good clarification. I thought it was important to stress that
there are well-performing 32bit x86 guest virtualization hypervisors out
there that do not require intel VT or AMD-V, such as VMware's ESX 3.5,
ESXi 3.5, workstation products, and current versions of Sun's Virtualbox.
For
There was a study published a couple years back that showed
enabling the VT instructions can result in lower performance
Heh. The x86 instruction set offers some fancy instructions that are
supposed to help you implement an OS by doing (in one swell foop) some
fairly involved stuff like
I have fairly deep OS-level experience (including some Virtual Machine
work) but I confess that I'm not up on the very latest VM technology
so to further the discussion let me ask something that may also have
occurred to others:
What is it in the nature of VM support in these processors (or
On Sun, 2009-09-27 at 12:43 -0400, Michael ODonnell wrote:
So if VM support is enabled by flipping some bit(s) in some CPU
Control Register(s) I'd assume that a VM-capable OS could flip those
bits as well as any BIOS code. I suppose it's possible that the CPU
might first insist on seeing a
So if VM support is enabled by flipping some bit(s) in some CPU
Control Register(s) I'd assume that a VM-capable OS could flip those
bits as well as any BIOS code. I suppose it's possible that the CPU
might first insist on seeing a certain logic level on a certain input
pin before
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Michael ODonnell
michael.odonn...@comcast.net wrote:
Not certain I understand what you're saying but processors in this family
come out of their power-on Reset state in their simplest, least capable
mode - interrupts disabled, MMU disabled, 20bit Real Mode
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Thomas Charron twaf...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Michael ODonnell
michael.odonn...@comcast.net wrote:
Not certain I understand what you're saying but processors in this family
come out of their power-on Reset state in their simplest,
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Thomas Charron twaf...@gmail.com wrote:
Intel's VT-x extensions *MUST* be enabled and supported by BIOS.
I'm not sure why ...
I seem to recall this facet of the design being sold as a security
feature. The scenario given was the entire nominal installed OS
23 matches
Mail list logo
