Sorry for the cross post.
My server finaly quitted to work :-(, but I had planed to upgrade at the
end of the year anyway.
As the VMX hardware is supposed to be out "soon" I actually wanted to
wait for it to hit the shelvs first.
Looks like I can not do this. so I''ve a question for the informed.
What hardware should I get now, and still be able to upgrade to VMX when
it''s available? If possible only by getting a new CPU.
I was planing for either a Pentium D and Athlon X2 (prefered), the low
end server market.
My server used to run 8 DomUs (it was a Pentium 4, 2.4GHz /w HT) but the
new one should be able to handle about 16.
--
Goetz Bock (c) 2005 as blacknet.de - Munich - Germany /"\
IT Consultant Creative Commons secure mobile Linux everNETting \ /
X
ASCII Ribbon Campaign against HTML email & microsoft attachments / \
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On 14 Aug 2005, at 11:44, Goetz Bock wrote:> As the VMX hardware is supposed to be out "soon" I actually wanted to > wait for it to hit the shelvs first. > > Looks like I can not do this. so I''ve a question for the informed. > > What hardware should I get now, and still be able to upgrade to VMX > when > it''s available? If possible only by getting a new CPU.Buying a mainboard with LGA775 socket is probably a fairly safe bet, but there''s no guarantee that future processor generations will run on it even if the socket doesn''t change. Compatibility might depend on the manufacturer creating appropriate BIOS patches, for example. -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Keir Fraser wrote:> > On 14 Aug 2005, at 11:44, Goetz Bock wrote: > >> As the VMX hardware is supposed to be out "soon" I actually wanted to >> wait for it to hit the shelvs first. >> >> Looks like I can not do this. so I''ve a question for the informed. >> >> What hardware should I get now, and still be able to upgrade to VMX when >> it''s available? If possible only by getting a new CPU. > > > Buying a mainboard with LGA775 socket is probably a fairly safe bet, but > there''s no guarantee that future processor generations will run on it > even if the socket doesn''t change. Compatibility might depend on the > manufacturer creating appropriate BIOS patches, for example.Looking at Intels latest ''upgrade'' path, which shows we''ll often have to buy new HW for new cpu''s, I''d go for AMD. Seems they''re into the game of longtime support, so my bet is that you''ll be able to outfit quite a lot of the latest mobos with future AMD64 cpu''s. This has of late been the case with i.e. their X2 line. Most resent mobos can handle those with a BIOS upgrade. I''d be looking at Iwill, Tyan, Gigabye. I assume by VMX, you''re talking about cpu/hardware with HW-support for virtualisation, i.e. Intels Vanderbilt Technology (VT) and AMD'' Pacifica. If so, it''s clear to me that AMD will be leading, because of it''s onchip memory controller, and hence reduced needs for software support to do the page switching, for which Intel needs quite a lot of software to emulate. However, I''m not sufficiently familiar with Xen on this topic (just getting started). What I''ve read is that Xen won''t benefit from or even use those HW-enabled mechanisms. Someone pls. correct me if I''m wrong here - I''d very much like to be wrong. Would be a pity not to take advantage of such mechanisms, IMHO. -- Kind regards, Mogens Valentin _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On 14 Aug 2005, at 13:23, Mogens Valentin wrote:> I assume by VMX, you''re talking about cpu/hardware with HW-support for > virtualisation, i.e. Intels Vanderbilt Technology (VT) and AMD'' > Pacifica. If so, it''s clear to me that AMD will be leading, because of > it''s onchip memory controller, and hence reduced needs for software > support to do the page switching, for which Intel needs quite a lot of > software to emulate.Not sure what you mean. Both technologies require the hypervisor to maintain shadow page tables. SVM (Pacifica) does have the advantage of a tagged TLB, so avoiding TLB flushes when switching between guest mode and hypervisor mode, and between guests, but we have no measurements so estimates of relative performance are pure conjecture.> However, I''m not sufficiently familiar with Xen on this topic (just > getting started). What I''ve read is that Xen won''t benefit from or > even use those HW-enabled mechanisms. > Someone pls. correct me if I''m wrong here - I''d very much like to be > wrong. Would be a pity not to take advantage of such mechanisms, IMHO.Xen will use VT and SVM to run unmodified operating systems. This will be useful for virtualising legacy system installations, and for supporting OSes where the source is not freely available. Xen already has VT support, and I expect that SVM will also be supported by the end of the year. Hardware won''t be generally available before then anyway. -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Keir Fraser wrote:> > On 14 Aug 2005, at 13:23, Mogens Valentin wrote: > >> I assume by VMX, you''re talking about cpu/hardware with HW-support >> for virtualisation, i.e. Intels Vanderbilt Technology (VT) and AMD'' >> Pacifica. If so, it''s clear to me that AMD will be leading, because >> of it''s onchip memory controller, and hence reduced needs for >> software support to do the page switching, for which Intel needs >> quite a lot of software to emulate. > > > Not sure what you mean. Both technologies require the hypervisor to > maintain shadow page tables.The Pacifica spec does mention optional hardware support for "Nested Page Tables" which is essentially hardware shadow page tables. Should be interesting to see the performance difference between software/hardware shadow page tables. It''s worth noting that AMD has just released a simulator for (SimNow) that has virtualization support. Perhaps one of the AMD guys on the list can confirm whether SimNow has enough Pacifica support for Xen development? Regards, Anthony Liguori> > -- Keir > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel >_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On 14 Aug 2005, at 19:09, Anthony Liguori wrote:> The Pacifica spec does mention optional hardware support for "Nested > Page Tables" which is essentially hardware shadow page tables. > > Should be interesting to see the performance difference between > software/hardware shadow page tables.I have doubts about the performance of hardware page tables, unless there''s a clever TLB design. A pagetable walk which is four memory accesses on normal x86/64 becomes twenty accesses in nested mode! It may be that shadow pagetables, by providing a bigger ''cache'' for guest->host mappings, can actually perform better on many workloads. I guess we''ll see -- if silicon is produced that supports that mode, someone is bound to add support to Xen. -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Hi, > Looking at Intels latest ''upgrade'' path, which shows we''ll often have to buy new HW for new cpu''s, I''d go for AMD. > Seems they''re into the game of longtime support, so my bet is that you''ll be able to outfit quite a lot of the latest mobos with future AMD64 cpu''s. > This has of late been the case with i.e. their X2 line. Most resent mobos can handle those with a BIOS upgrade. > I''d be looking at Iwill, Tyan, Gigabye. > This is conjecture, nor am I well versed in this technology, so take this with a grain of salt. I would assuume that both Intel and AMD platforms will need a new mainboard for the switch to hardware VM tech... Why? Intel: If only beacsue if the external memory controller, seemingly they Intel will need a new chipset. I also don''t see Intel passing on an oportuniity to sell more chipsets. AMD: With AMD planning to rollout support for DDR-2 and sockets M2/F, it is unlikely that hardware VM tech will be back-ported to the current generation A64 platform. -- David _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Yes, SimNow published at http://developer.amd.com/downloads.aspx indeed does have Pacifica hardware virtualization support. It has been an immense help to us in software development. We have used it for Xen development, so you won''t have to... but download if you like. Anthony Liguori wrote:> > Keir Fraser wrote: > > > > On 14 Aug 2005, at 13:23, Mogens Valentin wrote: > > > >> I assume by VMX, you''re talking about cpu/hardware with HW-support > >> for virtualisation, i.e. Intels Vanderbilt Technology (VT) and AMD'' > >> Pacifica. If so, it''s clear to me that AMD will be leading, because> >> of it''s onchip memory controller, and hence reduced needs for > >> software support to do the page switching, for which Intel needs > >> quite a lot of software to emulate. > > > > > > Not sure what you mean. Both technologies require the hypervisor to > > maintain shadow page tables. > > The Pacifica spec does mention optional hardware support for > "Nested Page Tables" which is essentially hardware shadow page tables. > > Should be interesting to see the performance difference > between software/hardware shadow page tables. > > It''s worth noting that AMD has just released a simulator for > (SimNow) that has virtualization support. Perhaps one of the > AMD guys on the list can confirm whether SimNow has enough > Pacifica support for Xen development? > > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori > > > > > -- Keir > >_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel