I am currently running F7 with HVMs. I am considering trying out F8
or F9 to see if I can get them to work as well. I know F9 doesn''t have
a
Dom0, at least not yet. I also understand that DomUs are supposed to work
on it. However, I don''t believe I have seen any discussion as to how
that
is done and/or whether or not HVM DomUs are supported in that environment.
I am assuming that since the decision that F9 wouldn''t include Dom0
support
was relatively recent that I probably don''t need to search the list
archives. Can anyone tell me whether or not HVM DomUs work in F9 and
whether or not there is any additional performance degradation vs running
them in a Dom0?
I actually prefer to run HVM DomUs in a regular kernel if possible
because I have always had mouse problems in Dom0 of F7, but not in the base
kernel. I understand that KVM is an option, but since Xen now supports
Windows with ACPI (without the degradation that was once common in Xen and
is still common in KVM because of a certain ACPI register apparently
regularly polled by Windows [I would love to know what register, as I could
then try to find a way to prevent Windows from doing that and KVM might
perform as well as Xen]), I feel that KVM would be a big step backwards.
Additionally, there are apparently more paravirtual drivers available for
Windows (though they are not readily available in binary form and stable,
more on that in my next message), though using std-vga in KVM is nice (with
standard VESA 2.0, a generic Windows driver already exists outside of the
project).
Finally, assuming that HVM DomUs can be run in F9, do the old
services and xm commands still exist, or will I have to learn to use virsh
and make xml configs? Thanks,
Dustin
Dustin Henning wrote:> I actually prefer to run HVM DomUs in a regular kernel if possible > because I have always had mouse problems in Dom0 of F7, but not in the base > kernel. I understand that KVM is an option, but since Xen now supports > Windows with ACPI (without the degradation that was once common in Xen and > is still common in KVM because of a certain ACPI register apparently > regularly polled by Windows [I would love to know what register, as I could >It''s called that Task Priority Register, or TPR.> then try to find a way to prevent Windows from doing that and KVM might > perform as well as Xen]), I feel that KVM would be a big step backwards. >For uniprocessor guests, kvm supports TPR optimization (since December 2007). It''s disabled on SMP guests due to stability issues, unfortunately.> Additionally, there are apparently more paravirtual drivers available for > Windows (though they are not readily available in binary form and stable, > more on that in my next message), though using std-vga in KVM is nice (with > standard VESA 2.0, a generic Windows driver already exists outside of the > project).A paravirtualized network driver is freely available for kvm. It is still not fully stable under heavy loads, though. We expect to fix this soon. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
Great information, and straight from the source! Can you tell me on which version of KVM support for TPR was implemented? I assume I am not up to said version, but I want to confirm, because when I start my Windows guests (currently all uniprocessor) in KVM, csrss.exe uses all available processor constantly until I follow the KVM Windows ACPI workaround directions. I have updated since December, but I am running Fedora 7 rpms, so I may have to move up a version or two to get that support. Thanks, Dustin -----Original Message----- From: Avi Kivity [mailto:avi@qumranet.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 11:55 To: Dustin.Henning@prd-inc.com Cc: fedora-xen@redhat.com Subject: Re: [Fedora-xen] HVM DomU on F9? Dustin Henning wrote:> I actually prefer to run HVM DomUs in a regular kernel if possible > because I have always had mouse problems in Dom0 of F7, but not in thebase> kernel. I understand that KVM is an option, but since Xen now supports > Windows with ACPI (without the degradation that was once common in Xen and > is still common in KVM because of a certain ACPI register apparently > regularly polled by Windows [I would love to know what register, as Icould>It''s called that Task Priority Register, or TPR.> then try to find a way to prevent Windows from doing that and KVM might > perform as well as Xen]), I feel that KVM would be a big step backwards. >For uniprocessor guests, kvm supports TPR optimization (since December 2007). It''s disabled on SMP guests due to stability issues, unfortunately.> Additionally, there are apparently more paravirtual drivers available for > Windows (though they are not readily available in binary form and stable, > more on that in my next message), though using std-vga in KVM is nice(with> standard VESA 2.0, a generic Windows driver already exists outside of the > project).A paravirtualized network driver is freely available for kvm. It is still not fully stable under heavy loads, though. We expect to fix this soon. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
Dustin Henning wrote:> Great information, and straight from the source! Can you tell me on > which version of KVM support for TPR was implemented?kvm-58 (see http://kvm.qumranet.com/kvmwiki/ChangeLog). F7''s rpms were stuck on kvm-36 IIRC. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
Hi Dustin, I guest you to use F8 and Xen. Emre On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 6:07 PM, Avi Kivity <avi@qumranet.com> wrote:> Dustin Henning wrote: > >> Great information, and straight from the source! Can you tell me >> on >> which version of KVM support for TPR was implemented? >> > > kvm-58 (see http://kvm.qumranet.com/kvmwiki/ChangeLog). F7''s rpms were > stuck on kvm-36 IIRC. > > > > -- > error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function > > -- > Fedora-xen mailing list > Fedora-xen@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-xen >-- Emre Erenoglu erenoglu@gmail.com
Forgot to say, F8 also has good KVM support, so you can try that also... Emre On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Emre ERENOGLU <erenoglu@gmail.com> wrote:> Hi Dustin, I guest you to use F8 and Xen. > > Emre > > > On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 6:07 PM, Avi Kivity <avi@qumranet.com> wrote: > >> Dustin Henning wrote: >> >>> Great information, and straight from the source! Can you tell me >>> on >>> which version of KVM support for TPR was implemented? >>> >> >> kvm-58 (see http://kvm.qumranet.com/kvmwiki/ChangeLog). F7''s rpms were >> stuck on kvm-36 IIRC. >> >> >> >> -- >> error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function >> >> -- >> Fedora-xen mailing list >> Fedora-xen@redhat.com >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-xen >> > > > > -- > Emre Erenoglu > erenoglu@gmail.com-- Emre Erenoglu erenoglu@gmail.com
That is probably what I will do, but Fedora has a short lifecycle, so
I thought 9 would be OK if it worked. I am also considering CentOS 5.1, but
CentOS 5.0 didnt work on my hardware, so I dont know that Ill have any
luck there. Any reason that would cause me grief (short of there not being
a CentOS-Xen mailing list)? Thanks,
Dustin
From: Emre ERENOGLU [mailto:erenoglu@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 12:38
To: Avi Kivity
Cc: Dustin.Henning@prd-inc.com; fedora-xen@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [Fedora-xen] HVM DomU on F9?
Hi Dustin, I guest you to use F8 and Xen.
Emre
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 6:07 PM, Avi Kivity <avi@qumranet.com> wrote:
Dustin Henning wrote:
Great information, and straight from the source! Can you tell me on
which version of KVM support for TPR was implemented?
kvm-58 (see http://kvm.qumranet.com/kvmwiki/ChangeLog). F7''s rpms were
stuck on kvm-36 IIRC.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
Fedora-xen mailing list
Fedora-xen@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-xen
--
Emre Erenoglu
erenoglu@gmail.com
For anyone who might have been following this thread, I accidentally forgot to add fedora-xen to the recipient list before sending my last reply. It is below, along with a response from Avi. I updated my F8 box, and sure enough, kvm-60 was installed. I thought I had just done that and kvm-55 was where it stopped, but I must be crazy or something. Also, I got the gplpv drivers by James Harper installed and functional as of version 0.9.2 (I had no luck with 0.9.0 or any prior version). That said, I probably won''t go any further with my quest for kvm, at least not in the near future. The stdvga emulation kvm uses (or at least used on kvm-47) was nice with the standard vesa drivers referenced on the kvm site (went higher than 1024x768), and those drivers don''t work for the stdvga=1 option in xen, but I think the potential performance gain from the multiple paravirtual drivers will be more important for me. Also, as I didn''t follow up on it, I did try to install CentOS 5.1 on this machine and it does not support the network card, so I am on Fedora 8 as originally recommended by Emre. Dustin -----Original Message----- From: Avi Kivity [mailto:avi@qumranet.com] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 03:13 To: Dustin.Henning@prd-inc.com Subject: Re: [Fedora-xen] HVM DomU on F9? [please use the list for questions like this] Dustin Henning wrote:> It doesn''t look like F8 is likely to get up to kvm-58 either.F8 is up to kvm-60.> I > prefer to stick with the Fedora repositories for the machine I am working > with, as I don''t want to run into compatibility issues on account of some > future update. However, I want to try to use the network driver, as I am > hopeful that it might make an apache application I am running perform > better. It is also possible that I really need disk drivers for that. > Would compiling a newer version of kvm on Fedora 8 be risky (in terms of > interoperability problems after some future update)?No.> Also, assuming the > answer to that is no, do I need to remove any certain packages first tomake> sure they don''t update and overwrite it?No. Do a ./configure --prefix=/opt/kvm-69 and all files will be placed there.> Finally, on the Fedora repo > versions of KVM for F7 and F8, I can''t create a VM with 2 GiB of RAM. Was > this a known kvm bug at some point (or worse, is it still?), or could itbe> a problem with Fedora (I can do this fine in xen)? Thanks, >For more than 2GB of RAM in a guest, you need a 64-bit hypervisor. Large guest support was added in kvm-47 (2TB guests were booted). -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.