Is there any plan to create a generic Xen that would run autommatically without Vanderpool or Pacifica technology or with those techologies if either one is present? Thanks, Dave Feustel ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xen-devel
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Dave Feustel wrote:> Is there any plan to create a generic Xen > that would run autommatically without Vanderpool > or Pacifica technology or with those techologies if > either one is present?One easy way to do this would just be to hack the bootloader to detect the processor and then automatically select the correct version of Xen. Would that do what you want? -- Robin ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xen-devel
> Is there any plan to create a generic Xen > that would run autommatically without Vanderpool > or Pacifica technology or with those techologies if > either one is present?I think that''s the plan. As far as I know, support for running dom0 under VT isn''t planned (at least not initially) so boot procedure is the same whatever. Once the system is up and running, if other domains are required to run under VT, dom0 can tell Xen to use VT for that domain, if it is available on the host hardware. Cheers, Mark> Thanks, > Dave Feustel > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide > Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. > Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xen-devel------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xen-devel
On Wednesday 09 March 2005 08:01 pm, Robin Green wrote:> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Dave Feustel wrote: > > Is there any plan to create a generic Xen > > that would run autommatically without Vanderpool > > or Pacifica technology or with those techologies if > > either one is present? > > One easy way to do this would just be to hack the bootloader to detect the > processor and then automatically select the correct version of Xen. > Would that do what you want?Yes. That would work. ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xen-devel
At the moment VT support is a compile time option. VT extensions are only used if you start a VT VM and are only used with that VM. So you can have native Xen VMs running alongside VT VMs. The same Xen image runs on hardware with and without VT. I''m not sure if I understand your question? Rolf> -----Original Message----- > From: xen-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net [mailto:xen-devel- > admin@lists.sourceforge.net] On Behalf Of Dave Feustel > Sent: 09 March 2005 14:29 > To: xen-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: [Xen-devel] Generic Xen > > Is there any plan to create a generic Xen > that would run autommatically without Vanderpool > or Pacifica technology or with those techologies if > either one is present? > > Thanks, > Dave Feustel > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide > Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from realusers.> Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xen-devel------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_ide95&alloc_id396&op=click _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xen-devel
On Thursday 10 March 2005 06:45 am, Neugebauer, Rolf wrote:> At the moment VT support is a compile time option. VT extensions are > only used if you start a VT VM and are only used with that VM. So you > can have native Xen VMs running alongside VT VMs. The same Xen image > runs on hardware with and without VT. > I''m not sure if I understand your question?Well! This is both interesting and new to me! It makes my question moot, but I have another. When I think of VM, VM370 is what comes to mind. My impression of Xen is that it does not follow the model of VM370. Is that correct? If it is correct, what made the designers of Xen move in the direction they have taken? Thanks, Dave Feustel ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xen-devel
> Well! This is both interesting and new to me!The VT support is in the tree right now, so you can take a look at it.> It makes my question moot, > but I have another. When I think of VM, VM370 is what comes to mind. > My impression of Xen is that it does not follow the model of VM370. > Is that correct?It is similar in that it runs on the bare metal, with virtual machines multiplexed on top (as opposed to taking a "hosted" approach (like UML, VMWare workstation, etc.) where the VMM runs on top of an OS that controls the hardware). VMWare ESX server also runs on bare metal. Xen 2.0 differs in that the actual devices are controlled by one or more special domains, rather than by the VMM. IBM''s VM370, VMWare ESX and Xen 1.x all run drivers in the VMM itself.> If it is correct, what made the designers of Xen move > in the direction they have taken?Running device drivers in one or more domains allows better hardware support than running them in the VMM, with less effort (don''t have to port device drivers). It can also provide better isolation of (potentially buggy) device drivers, and lets us do cool things like live restarts / upgrades of device drivers. HTH, Mark> Thanks, > Dave Feustel > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide > Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. > Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xen-devel------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xen-devel
On Thursday 10 March 2005 10:59 am, Mark Williamson wrote:> > Well! This is both interesting and new to me! > > The VT support is in the tree right now, so you can take a look at it. > > > It makes my question moot, > > but I have another. When I think of VM, VM370 is what comes to mind. > > My impression of Xen is that it does not follow the model of VM370. > > Is that correct? > > It is similar in that it runs on the bare metal, with virtual machines > multiplexed on top (as opposed to taking a "hosted" approach (like UML, > VMWare workstation, etc.) where the VMM runs on top of an OS that controls > the hardware). VMWare ESX server also runs on bare metal. > > Xen 2.0 differs in that the actual devices are controlled by one or more > special domains, rather than by the VMM. IBM''s VM370, VMWare ESX and Xen 1.x > all run drivers in the VMM itself. > > > If it is correct, what made the designers of Xen move > > in the direction they have taken? > > Running device drivers in one or more domains allows better hardware support > than running them in the VMM, with less effort (don''t have to port device > drivers). It can also provide better isolation of (potentially buggy) device > drivers, and lets us do cool things like live restarts / upgrades of device > drivers. > > HTH, > MarkYes, very much. Thanks! Dave F ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xen-devel
> Is there any plan to create a generic Xen > that would run autommatically without Vanderpool > or Pacifica technology or with those techologies if > either one is present?I was thinking about your question and I thought of something else worth mentioning: it''s great that we can fully virtualise a machine with hardware support but even so *we''re not abandoning paravirtualisation* We get excellent performance from paravirtualisation and Xen-aware guests are likely to have a worthwhile performance advantage. Using h/w support for virtualisation increases the range of Xen awareness we can support in guest OSs: * At one end of the spectrum, you might run an OS under full virtualisation (including devices) whilst you are installing and configuring it. * If available for your OS, you might then choose to install paravirtualised device drivers for your OS for improved IO performance. Nothing outside the IO subsystem needs to be aware of Xen, so this is essentially "paravirtualisation-lite" * At the other end of the spectrum, you might instead install a "Xen-native" OS kernel (e.g. Linux, NetBSD, FreeBSD, Plan 9) to minimise virtualisation overheads as far as possible. There are other points on this tradeoff spectrum between the two extremes... Maybe that clarifies where things are headed. Cheers, Mark ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xen-devel