similar to: Adding an application to the list

Hello, Martin. The following is a brief description of VMmanager:  Software solution for virtualization management that can be used both for hosting virtual machines and building a cloud. With VMmanager you can manage not only one server, but a large cluster of hypervisors. It delivers a number of functions, such as live migration that allows for load balancing between cluster nodes, monitoring

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 05:54:10AM +0400, KSENYA PHIL wrote: > > Dear Sirs, > > my name is Ksenya, I'm from the ISPsystem company, which develops software products for hosting business automation. We'd like to add VMmanager into the Web-applications section  http://libvirt.org/apps.html#web > VMmanager is a solution for virtulization management that enables to create and

Hello everybody! We have a cluster of servers managed by VMmanager 5 KVM (by ispsystem). A typical node: # cat /etc/redhat-release CentOS Linux release 7.3.1611 (Core) # uname -r 3.10.0-693.11.6.el7.x86_64 # rpm -qa |grep libvirt libvirt-daemon-driver-qemu-3.7.0-1.el7.centos.x86_64 libvirt-daemon-driver-storage-disk-3.7.0-1.el7.centos.x86_64 libvirt-3.7.0-1.el7.centos.x86_64

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 11:30:16AM +0700, Artem Likhachev wrote: >Hello everybody! > >We have a cluster of servers managed by VMmanager 5 KVM (by ispsystem). > >A typical node: > ># cat /etc/redhat-release >CentOS Linux release 7.3.1611 (Core) ># uname -r >3.10.0-693.11.6.el7.x86_64 > ># rpm -qa |grep libvirt

Hi people... I want know if Source Codes Virtulization Solution from Red Hat has be release? Thanks -- Gilberto Nunes

In config file, ''*type=ioemu*'' is added with vif . Does it make the difference if we don''t add. Because i did not notice any difference in para as well as full virtulization. Same as in case of exporting the disk to Guest dom. Is it just a placeholder or else ? Second thing, I am running RHEL3 as a HVM DomU on xen-3.0.4. Every thing works fine, but i had a problem to

We's like to invite all of you to attend the first annual KVM Forum 2007. Please click here http://www.qumranet.com/KVMForum2007.php to be taken to the event site where you can learn more about the KVM Forum 2007 and register online. Hosted by the KVM Developer Community, the purpose of the forum is to bring together developers, testers and other technical individuals from within the community

We's like to invite all of you to attend the first annual KVM Forum 2007. Please click here http://www.qumranet.com/KVMForum2007.php to be taken to the event site where you can learn more about the KVM Forum 2007 and register online. Hosted by the KVM Developer Community, the purpose of the forum is to bring together developers, testers and other technical individuals from within the community

vhost is currently broken on the some ARM configs. The reason is that the ring element addresses are passed between components with different alignments assumptions. Thus, if guest selects a pointer and host then gets and dereferences it, then alignment assumed by the host's compiler might be greater than the actual alignment of the pointer. compiler on the host from assuming pointer is

vhost is currently broken on the some ARM configs. The reason is that the ring element addresses are passed between components with different alignments assumptions. Thus, if guest selects a pointer and host then gets and dereferences it, then alignment assumed by the host's compiler might be greater than the actual alignment of the pointer. compiler on the host from assuming pointer is

Zhang, Xiantao wrote: >>From 6b731c15afa8cec84f16408c421c286f1dd1b7d3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Xiantao Zhang <xiantao.zhang at intel.com> > Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:45:40 +0800 > Subject: [PATCH] KVM:IA64 : Add TLB virtulization support. > > vtlb.c includes tlb/VHPT virtulization. > Signed-off-by: Anthony Xu <anthony.xu at intel.com> >

Zhang, Xiantao wrote: >>From 5c70c038c57190144390ae9d30c3d06afba103d4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Xiantao Zhang <xiantao.zhang at intel.com> > Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 14:59:30 +0800 > Subject: [PATCH] KVM:IA64 : Add kvm sal/pal virtulization support. > > Some sal/pal calls would be traped to kvm for virtulization > from guest firmware. > Signed-off-by: Xiantao

Zhang, Xiantao wrote: >>From 6b731c15afa8cec84f16408c421c286f1dd1b7d3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Xiantao Zhang <xiantao.zhang at intel.com> > Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:45:40 +0800 > Subject: [PATCH] KVM:IA64 : Add TLB virtulization support. > > vtlb.c includes tlb/VHPT virtulization. > Signed-off-by: Anthony Xu <anthony.xu at intel.com> >

Thanks again! Can you tell me the difference in setting things up that way as opposed to updating (in Ubuntu) /etc/network/interfaces and adding physical br(idge) interfaces? On my other test box, I setup networks the way you describe from https://help.ubuntu.com/community/KVM/Networking -----Original Message----- From: Laine Stump <laine@laine.org> To: libvirt-users@redhat.com Cc:

May be my question is a stupid. But I can''t get working 64 bit guest OS. I''m using debian 5.0.1 with xen-3.4.0 (it was compiled manually today to get FreeBSD guest OS working) xen:~# uname -a Linux xen 2.6.18.8-xen #1 SMP Wed May 27 17:30:09 IRKST 2009 x86_64 GNU/Linux xen:~# xm info host : xen release : 2.6.18.8-xen version : #1

hello what is the differences between wine and vmware? thanks in advance.

Zhang, Xiantao wrote: >>From 0d698efed15759b49e78adcef085feda0a14a175 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Xiantao Zhang <xiantao.zhang at intel.com> > Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 14:57:09 +0800 > Subject: [PATCH] KVM:IA64: Add optimization for some virtulization > faults > > optvfault.S Add optimization for some performance-critical > virtualization faults. >

Hi, >>From 2dbf7c93ff5e36a221761c690ff12e7be48a6bb2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >From: Xiantao Zhang <xiantao.zhang at intel.com> >Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:49:38 +0800 >Subject: [PATCH] kvm/ia64: add optimization for some virtulization >faults > >optvfault.S adds optimization for some performance-critical >virtualization >faults. >Signed-off-by: Anthony Xu

Hello all, please tell me, is it possible (at least theoretically) to circumvent bug 622 [1] by using GRUB instead of /boot/loader to load FreeBSD kernel? Or it is silly idea: even if we bypass /boot/loader we will not be able to run FreeBSD kernel in a HVM-domain on a Intel-based host for some other reason? As far as I know, GRUB can''t load FreeBSD kernel directly, but only can