The original line I was looking for was vm_local_rpio=”1” /boot/loader.conf
I believe VMX was pre-release at the stage I was thinking of and after
release it was only distributed as the multi-VM setup so I'm not sure
if the code that ran the virtual FPC integrated is still there.
Hi Lukasz.
Went scavenging through documentation and the requirements are not bigger, they
are actually less.
Memory required is the same (3GB) but nested only requires 3 vCPU to run
everything, versus the 4 vCPU required for non-nested.
So negligible reduction, but it’s definitely not bigger
On 21 Dec 2020, at 12:54 EAT, Mark Tees wrote:
Does anyone know if that's still possible? I just want a pretend/low
performance/fake FPC ideally.
In addition to the responses you’ve received there’s also
https://github.com/Juniper/OpenJNPR-Container-vMX to look at.
YMMV.
--
patrick
Nikolas, Mark,
> On 23 Dec 2020, at 02:47, Nikolas Geyer wrote:
>
> vRR is basically just the VCP component of vMX without the vFP, which is why
> it’s limited to Linux bridged “management” interfaces.
>
> There is nested vMX which runs the VCP as a nested virtual machine within the
> VFP,
vRR is basically just the VCP component of vMX without the vFP, which is why
it’s limited to Linux bridged “management” interfaces.
There is nested vMX which runs the VCP as a nested virtual machine within the
VFP, not sure if it reduces requirements and iirc it only works on KVM.
Sent from
Digging into that a bit further, it looks like when I enabled the
Intel VT-x/EPT on a Linux VM in Vmware it booted with /dev/kvm so it
may work.
Will give it a go and report back.
On Tue, 22 Dec 2020 at 09:50, Mark Tees wrote:
>
> I would love to use that but it requires a CPU that has nested
>
I would love to use that but it requires a CPU that has nested
virtualisation features which my laptop doesn't have.
I have another machine with a newer Intel i7 CPU but I suspect VMCS is
Xeon only. I can always boot that second box into Linux and run KVM
directly on it though.
Food for thought.
That's it. I actually wanted to see MX specific things get spun on up
on interfaces from some code being developed.
Currently I have 2 x VMX's squashed into 4G's of RAM running under
Vmware Fusion which currently does the job but it's a bit messy. I can
probably fix the mess by generating the
Hi,
I remember when I originally got my mittens on VMX there was a boot
> flag to tell it to use an integrated FPC or integrated RIOT without a
> separate VM running forwarding. I can't find my notes on that.
>
> Does anyone know if that's still possible? I just want a pretend/low
>
On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 18:27, wrote:
> I guess if you don't want any vfp VM and want to run vcp VM only then vRR or
> the cRDP are the possible options?
I suspect the requirement is MX feature/configuration validation, so
pps would be traded for simplicity of stack, down to 1pps. vRR and
cRPD
> James Bensley
> Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 3:01 PM
>
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 09:56, Mark Tees wrote:
> >
> > Hello
> >
> > I remember when I originally got my mittens on VMX there was a boot
> > flag to tell it to use an integrated FPC or integrated RIOT without a
> > separate VM running
On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 09:56, Mark Tees wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> I remember when I originally got my mittens on VMX there was a boot
> flag to tell it to use an integrated FPC or integrated RIOT without a
> separate VM running forwarding. I can't find my notes on that.
>
> Does anyone know if that's
12 matches
Mail list logo
