search for: virtualised

Hi, I run a small company and I would like to virtualise our setup. My internet provider offers a cloud server running CentOS. The server is managed by vmware software, they haven't been able to tell me exactly what. I wanted to know is it possible to virtualise such a setup, and Have CentOS running as the virtual OS that every client sees. Is there a solution similar to vmware view + client

Hello all, I have already use xen for about a year. I use recently released Opensuse 11.3 (use Xen 4.0) for my experiment. I want to run 3D test in HVM(windows xp), so I want to use VGA passthrough technology. But there is something not work properly. I google a lot of time, it says, I/O virtualisation should be enabled, but I can solve it. I run "xm dmesg" command, in the

Dear all, I look after a number of CentOS 4.x servers running legacy applications that depend on ancient versions of various things (such as MySQL 3.x) and which can't be upgraded without non-trivial development effort. I've been considering virtualising them and as a test have been trialling with a company that uses Parallels Cloud Server 6. However, I've run into a roadblock

I know a lot has changed over the past couple of years, and even monthly, and that Asterisk running within a virtualised environment is very happy indeed. If one would only be using SIP/IAX would Xen/KVM be the best solution ? / or perhaps VServer/LXC maybe advantageous due to binary hashing. Your thoughts would be very welcome. -- Thanks, Phil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbe...

Protected Virtualisation protects the memory of the guest and do not allow a the host to access all of its memory. Let's refuse a VIRTIO device which does not use IOMMU protected access. Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel at linux.ibm.com> --- drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) diff --git a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c

Protected Virtualisation protects the memory of the guest and do not allow a the host to access all of its memory. Let's refuse a VIRTIO device which does not use IOMMU protected access. Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel at linux.ibm.com> --- drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) diff --git a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c

hello list, i did a kvm guest with virt-manager and installed windows server 2016. performance settings for the disk: hypervisor default for cache & io mode i added a 2nd disk to the guest , also with hypervisor default settings on cache & io mode Under disk settings in windows server 2016 i set "format whole disk NTFS" i did not choose the "quick format" option.

hello , i did a kvm guest with virt-manager and installed windows server 2016. performance settings for the disk: hypervisor default for cache & io mode i added a 2nd disk to the guest , also with hypervisor default settings on cache & io mode Under disk settings in windows server 2016 i set "format whole disk NTFS" i did not choose the "quick format" option. when

I have a chipset which supports VT-d (Intel X58) and, according to my motherboard manufacturers, VT-d is enabled in the BIOS and listed as "Intel VT." The problem is that xm dmesg shows "I/O virtualisation disabled" and I get this error message when I try to create a domU with a pci device assigned: ''Error: failed to assign device: maybe the platform doesn''t

Hi, I used to use KVM for virtualisation and have now moved back to it, but I have a problem. When i used to install the guest machine with virt-install i used to use the -x "extra args" part to set the console for the install and guest, but it no longer works. Here is the command i use: virt-install -n server01 -r 512 --os-variant=virtio26 -c /isos/c5u5.iso --nographics

Dear mailinglist, I own a Gigabyte motherboard GA 970A UD3 with IOMMU support. Since the update XSA-36 (also part of the latest debian wheezy pkg), the IO-Virtualisation does not work any more as discussed on this mailinglist [0] and [1]. I like to ask, if there is an "official" solution in sight. I''m not sure about my alternatives. How "dangerous" is the

Niklas - Thanks! Yeah, your Github issue was very useful for me to understand what is probably causing our issue (the syscall chain done on every UDP packet). Very interesting that you're able to see around 90% of a Gig line on bare metal. Were you ever able to make any further progress on adjusting Tinc based on the investigation in https://github.com/gsliepen/tinc/issues/110 ? Martin -

Hello, I have some interesting issue with Intel VT CPU and XEN 3.0.2: I''m running XEN 3.0.2 on a MSI Fuzzy 945GM2 Mainboard (http://www.msi.com.tw/program/products/ic/ic_detail.php?prod_no=4) with a Intel Core 2 Duo Mobile CPU (T5500). When booting the mainboard BIOS says it found a EM64T CPU, which is AFAIK the code for a Intel CPU with Virtualisation Technologie. But whether Linux

...process of moving our users from an ancient Win2K Advanced Server based AD to exactly this kind of setup. We have Samba43 running as an AD_DC under FreeBSD10.3 which itself is running as a BHyve guest VM on a FreeBSD-10.3 host. There are no issues with ports or NICs on the guest as these are all virtualised. The Samba service is configured to use internal DNS and is assigned its own private /24 network from 192.168.0.0/16. We presently do not have DHCP in use on that netblock because the LAN segment is not yet isolated from the rest of our services and the old AD-DC is still providing addresses from...

Some background - I have a couple of NetBSD (i386) boxes and CentOS 5 boxes that I want to virtualise and I''m trying to work out which OS will be most suitable as the dom0. I have a desire to run at least RAID1 and ideally ZFS mirroring on the dom0 so I can have all the domU''s not have to worry about disk redundancy etc. My hardware : I have a brand new Intel E8200 core2duo and

I would like to run multiple copies of an application on a PC with multiple remote dumb clients. It would seem to me that running Xen would be a sub-optimal solution as I would need a copy of the OS running for every copy of the application, but I was wondering whether a subset of Xen or Xen techniques could be used. There are 2 barriers to running multiple applications with remote access: -

Hello, We all know linux distros will use most of the free memory available for caching stuff, I/O buffers etc (hence sites like linuxatemyram.com). In many virt scenarios we have some sort of memory deduplication mechanisms, such as KSM on KVM (don't know how it's called in Vmware). My situation is one where I need to cram up as many virtual machines as I can on a single hypervisor

Hello, We all know linux distros will use most of the free memory available for caching stuff, I/O buffers etc (hence sites like linuxatemyram.com). In many virt scenarios we have some sort of memory deduplication mechanisms, such as KSM on KVM (don't know how it's called in Vmware). My situation is one where I need to cram up as many virtual machines as I can on a single hypervisor

Has anyone had any real-world experience using a VM to host storage for other VMs. For example, glusterfs running in a VM in domU on host A, replicating to another glusterfs VM on host B, with other VMs on those same hosts connecting to the glusterfs for their storage? It''s obviously not a very efficient way of doing things, but it might be an easy and flexible way to manage things in a

I noticed a large performance boost both on bare metal and in vps instances by turning on kernel routing in the tinc config, and using full host declerations for routs rather than dumping things to the tun interface ambiguously. "Forwarding = kernel" ip route add 1.2.3.4 via 4.3.2.1 dev tun -instead of- ip route add 1.2.3.4 dev tun On May 17, 2017 3:10 PM, "Niklas Hambüchen"