Avi Kivity wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
I think most people agree that we need a config file. I haven't seen
any comments on my config file patch though.
So, any comments on that patch? Any requirements on a format?
1. Any option should be settable either in the config file or
Lonnie Mendez wrote:
On Sat, 2006-12-16 at 23:37 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, I said I think because I wanted to use a decent benchmark to
actually test the results. I threw in a test against VMPlayer as well. I
found that with USB tablet emulation, Qemu was approximately only
Paul Brook wrote:
Does anyone know the reason for the removal of the mmap()? I have used
a benchmarking tool (I think it was 3D Mark05 or 3D Mark06) and the
memory access in the guest WinXP was slooow. Does anyone have any
insight on making the hardware MMU function for linux-x86 host to
Tim Olson wrote:
On Dec 13, 2006, at 10:04 AM, Joseph Miller wrote:
Can someone elaborate on this a little? What is the difference
between the SOFTMMU and the mmap()? Should I be using the
--enable-system or the --disable-system for win32 guest on i386
debian host? Can someone give
Tim Olson wrote:
I am using qemu 0.8.2 built from source. In the qemu technical
documentation for features under full system emulation, it says:
QEMU can either use a full software MMU for maximum portability or
use the host system call mmap() to simulate the target MMU.
However, I cannot
According to the roadmap,
http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/roadmap.html, Mac OS X will be
supported as a guest OS. May I ask, what is the status of this?
-Joseph
___
Qemu-devel mailing list
Qemu-devel@nongnu.org
On Wednesday 04 October 2006 11:00 am, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
From: Hetz Ben Hamo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Due to some personal problems (related to financial situations) I'm
no
longer being able to keep paying the server which hosts the QEMU
forum.
Therefore, I'm looking for someone who
I'm running a terminal server under qemu with kqemu compiled into my kernel
under the -kernel-kqemu for fastest performance. What is the most efficient
method of -net ? I was using -net user with OpenVPN to connect to my
internal LAN, but I have switched to -net tap to see if that is faster.
. Do you know why it
can boot quickly? Have you used a distro hat was made from LFS?
Thanks,
Mike
On 9/5/06, Joseph Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you are looking for a system to boot quickly, LinuxFromScratch would
be pretty fast, but takes a long time to build.
-Joseph
If you are looking for a system to boot quickly, LinuxFromScratch would be
pretty fast, but takes a long time to build.
-Joseph
On Saturday 02 September 2006 4:43 pm, Michael Fisher wrote:
I want to know if the following idea is impossible, possible or just crazy.
I want to create a
for some time now, but I don't know what the holdup is
on MinGW.
- -Joseph Miller
On Monday 12 June 2006 3:33 pm, Christian MICHON wrote:
interestingly enough, qemu-img is compiled with large file support, yet
on win32/mingw (gcc 3.4.5) qemu-img cannot manage images bigger
than 2Gb
anyone
On Tuesday 01 August 2006 4:29 pm, Jonathan Kalbfeld wrote:
I have an instance of NetBSD 3.0.1 that runs inside of QEMU emulating an
i386.
On the parent system, whether it is Windows, Linux, Solaris, or *BSD,
you can run an OpenVPN instance and set up a tunnel.
On the guest system, you can
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 22 January 2006 8:18 am, Andrew Leach wrote:
Hi,
I'm new to QEMU but have been sufficiently impressed (well done to all
involved) to try and get my networking working!
I've installed the OpenVPN Tap driver (and called it QEMU) and have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I have been using an compiler-optimized version of qemu for several weeks now
on an x86 with much success. Qemu has not crashed one single time and I have
seen a noticeable performance increase. What I have done is added
-finline-functions
14 matches
Mail list logo
