Re: serious virtualization without HW support?

2009-04-12 Thread Kevin Kofler
Bill Davidsen wrote: Thanks. Your mailer seems to have chopped off the URL of the repository from the end of your message. ;-) No, unfortunately I forgot the URL. Kevin Kofler -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe:

Re: serious virtualization without HW support?

2009-04-11 Thread Bill Davidsen
Kevin Kofler wrote: Bill Davidsen wrote: There's nothing wrong with it, I know a few web hosting operations which still use xen. If Fedora supported xen I would probably use it on some available hardware, I just don't feel like going back to the days of building and updating my own kernels all

Re: serious virtualization without HW support?

2009-04-06 Thread Bill Davidsen
Robert P. J. Day wrote: i'm reading the section on CPU virtualization extensions here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Virtualization_Quick_Start and it occurs to me to ask whether anyone would want to get *seriously* into virtualization without having machines with those extensions. is it

Re: serious virtualization without HW support?

2009-04-06 Thread Kevin Kofler
Bill Davidsen wrote: There's nothing wrong with it, I know a few web hosting operations which still use xen. If Fedora supported xen I would probably use it on some available hardware, I just don't feel like going back to the days of building and updating my own kernels all the time. Xen Dom0

serious virtualization without HW support?

2009-04-01 Thread Robert P. J. Day
i'm reading the section on CPU virtualization extensions here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Virtualization_Quick_Start and it occurs to me to ask whether anyone would want to get *seriously* into virtualization without having machines with those extensions. is it safe to say that, by now,

Re: serious virtualization without HW support?

2009-04-01 Thread Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak
Robert P. J. Day wrote: and it occurs to me to ask whether anyone would want to get *seriously* into virtualization without having machines with those extensions. No. is it safe to say that, by now, most modern systems come with VT or AMD-V support? and by serious virtualization, i don't

Re: serious virtualization without HW support?

2009-04-01 Thread Robert P. J. Day
On Wed, 1 Apr 2009, Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak wrote: Robert P. J. Day wrote: and it occurs to me to ask whether anyone would want to get *seriously* into virtualization without having machines with those extensions. No. i thought as much. i asked only because i've had a couple people

Re: serious virtualization without HW support?

2009-04-01 Thread Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak
Robert P. J. Day wrote: Most new machines now have the virtualization flags. It's always worth checking before you buy, though. i do recall reading somewhere that, yes, you have to be careful to check that the system not only has the virt extension but that it's *turned on*. i can't recall

Re: serious virtualization without HW support?

2009-04-01 Thread Bill Crawford
On Wednesday 01 April 2009 13:39:36 Robert P. J. Day wrote: i'm reading the section on CPU virtualization extensions here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Virtualization_Quick_Start and it occurs to me to ask whether anyone would want to get *seriously* into virtualization without having

Re: serious virtualization without HW support?

2009-04-01 Thread Tom Horsley
On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 08:39:36 -0400 (EDT) Robert P. J. Day wrote: and it occurs to me to ask whether anyone would want to get *seriously* into virtualization without having machines with those extensions. Depends - the Xen style paravirt stuff works well (for some definition of well) without