Hi, What Windows versions will be supported using Xen running on a Pacifica/VT enabled CPU? Also, will it be possible to run a i386 OS virtually inside Xen when running a AMD64 host os? Regards, Matthijs ter Woord _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> What Windows versions will be supported using Xen running on a Pacifica/VT > enabled CPU?I think the plan is for WinXP and Win2K3 Server to run... WinXP certainly runs under VT now, although there are still fixes and optimisations necessary to get things where we want them. In theory, other Windows versions (and other random OSes) ought to work. Certainly, I think the Linuxes and BSDs are known to work happily. Some people will probably want to run ancient Windows versions on Xen in order to migrate really old servers to a new machine.> Also, will it be possible to run a i386 OS virtually inside Xen when > running a AMD64 host os?Intel are certainly planning to support 32-bit VTX on a 64-bit host - somebody from AMD would have to comment on their plans for this (if they can at this stage). Cheers, Mark _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> In theory, other Windows versions (and other random OSes) ought to work. > Certainly, I think the Linuxes and BSDs are known to work happily. Some > people will probably want to run ancient Windows versions on Xen in orderto> migrate really old servers to a new machine.Ancient? is Windows 2000 also ancient already?> Intel are certainly planning to support 32-bit VTX on a 64-bit host -somebody> from AMD would have to comment on their plans for this (if they can atthis> stage).This would be great, although i''d personally hope that AMD will support that too, as AMD''s are more powerfull (imo) Thanks for the information thusfar. Regards, Matthijs ter Woord _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> > people will probably want to run ancient Windows versions on Xen in order > > to > > > migrate really old servers to a new machine. > > Ancient? is Windows 2000 also ancient already?Only slightly ;-) With virtualisation, people often ask things like "Can I run my Linux 2.0 distro with a kernel module that''s not available on any other kernel version under Xen?" or "Can I migrate my Win NT server to Xen?". I''d say this sort of thing is likely to be actively supported since people will have a business need for it - lots of shops are still running on W2K, after all. In any case, if WinXP works, then so should Win2K - it''s basically the same in many ways, after all. Cheers, Mark> This would be great, although i''d personally hope that AMD will support > that too, as AMD''s are more powerfull (imo)> Thanks for the information thusfar. > > Regards, > > Matthijs ter Woord_______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> -----Original Message----- > From: xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com > [mailto:xen-users-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of > Matthijs ter Woord > Sent: 25 October 2005 16:29 > To: Mark Williamson; xen-users@lists.xensource.com > Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Pacifica/VT > > > > In theory, other Windows versions (and other random OSes) > ought to work. > > Certainly, I think the Linuxes and BSDs are known to work happily. > > Some people will probably want to run ancient Windows > versions on Xen > > in order > to > > migrate really old servers to a new machine. > > Ancient? is Windows 2000 also ancient already?There isn''t any particular reason why Win2K or WinNT wouldn''t work. The only quirk with this is that each OS-version has it''s own special things that someone has cleverly thought out how to do special things. With these things, when emulating for instance memory mapped IO, the hypervisor needs to understand every instruction. So, for instance, if Windows XP always uses MOV-instructions to access MMIO-space, but some base-driver in Win2K uses an OR-instruction for one special operation, then Win2K would require that this OR-instruction is included in the set of instructions to be emulated. It''s no rocket science, but it''s a complex subject, and there''s many more ways that can break than the number of ways that works. In essense, there''s really no reason to think that any particular OS isn''t supposed to work, but it all depends on what particulars of hardware access and weirdness occurs in that particular OS. If all OS''s were written cleanly and never using any special functionality in the OS, then it''s fine. I think someone found out (the hard way) that some OS''s don''t follow the published standard for how to transfer from Real-mode to protected mode (which is the instruction immediately following move to CR0 should be a far-jump), which meant that the emulation code would think and behave like if the processor was in protected mode, but the CS register wasn''t updated to it''s proper protected mode values, which of course causes weird behaviour in the emulation software. Lots of these special cases can exist in software, and the emulation code that interprets this code MUST be able to handle it just like the real hardware (whether the hardware does what is really expected or something else).> > > Intel are certainly planning to support 32-bit VTX on a > 64-bit host - > somebody > > from AMD would have to comment on their plans for this (if > they can at > this > > stage). > > This would be great, although i''d personally hope that AMD > will support that too, as AMD''s are more powerfull (imo)It''s certainly our plan to support 64-bit Xen running 32-bit OS''s. As with Intel''s solution, it''s not ENTIRELY trivial to support 3-level page-tables on a system which natively needs 4-level page-tables, and the related interesting problems that this leads to. But by all accounts, it should "just work". This may or may not be in the first release of code to the public, that I can''t really say, as I''m not sure what will be released and when... -- Mats> > > Thanks for the information thusfar. > > Regards, > > Matthijs ter Woord > > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-users mailing list > Xen-users@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users > >_______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> It''s certainly our plan to support 64-bit Xen running 32-bit > OS''s. As with Intel''s solution, it''s not ENTIRELY trivial to > support 3-level page-tables on a system which natively needs > 4-level page-tables, and the related interesting problems > that this leads to. But by all accounts, it should "just > work". This may or may not be in the first release of code to > the public, that I can''t really say, as I''m not sure what > will be released and when...3-on-4 is a slight pain because the 3-level PGDs may not be page aligned. (barf) 2-on-3 and 2-on-4 are a pain because each page table page in the L2 has to be turned into two pages in the 3/4-level pagetable because of the number of PTEs. Ian _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Petersson, Mats wrote:>>Intel are certainly planning to support 32-bit VTX on a >>64-bit host - somebody from AMD would have to comment on their plans for this >>(if they can at this stage). >> >>This would be great, although i''d personally hope that AMD >>will support that too, as AMD''s are more powerfull (imo) > > > It''s certainly our plan to support 64-bit Xen running 32-bit OS''s.It''s hard finding info on approx when Pacifica enabled cpu will be available. I''ve heard maybe around may/june ''06. It''s even more difficult finding out whether AMD will support S939 with these upcoming cpu''s, or it will be M2. Likewise WRT which type of memory, DDR/DDR2... Is it possible to have even vague comments on this? Has a lot to say on nearterm hardware buys. -- Kind regards, Mogens Valentin PCIe virtualisation: Imagine cat herding with a firehose and firecrackers. That is notably easier than getting all the peripheral makers to play along. -- fun on theinquirer.net _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> -----Original Message----- > From: Mogens Valentin [mailto:mogensv@vip.cybercity.dk] > Sent: 25 October 2005 22:02 > To: Petersson, Mats > Cc: xen-users@lists.xensource.com > Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Pacifica/VT > > Petersson, Mats wrote: > >>Intel are certainly planning to support 32-bit VTX on a > 64-bit host - > >>somebody from AMD would have to comment on their plans for this (if > >>they can at this stage). > >> > >>This would be great, although i''d personally hope that AMD will > >>support that too, as AMD''s are more powerfull (imo) > > > > > > It''s certainly our plan to support 64-bit Xen running 32-bit OS''s. > > It''s hard finding info on approx when Pacifica enabled cpu > will be available. I''ve heard maybe around may/june ''06.I could make you happy, and myself unhappy (i.e. looking for a different job) by telling you something, _IF_ I knew. I don''t know, so there''s no risk that I would leak something ... ;-)> > It''s even more difficult finding out whether AMD will support > S939 with these upcoming cpu''s, or it will be M2. > Likewise WRT which type of memory, DDR/DDR2...I don''t know the answer to this either. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, the answers to the above questions are kept secret, and although I work for AMD, I''m not privvy to the information you ask for. Even if I was, I wouldn''t be allowed to tell you [or anyone else that didn''t have the NDA]. I know you think we''re just doing this to either frustrate people or to make people buy the current hardware even tho'' the next generation is going to be different. That''s not quite the objective here, but we don''t really want everyone [especially SOME people in the competing company ;-)] to know what we''re up to when it comes to next generation hardware.> > Is it possible to have even vague comments on this? > Has a lot to say on nearterm hardware buys.Sorry that I can''t help. I''d love to, and I think you understand that... -- mats> > -- > Kind regards, > Mogens Valentin > > > PCIe virtualisation: Imagine cat herding with a firehose > and firecrackers. That is notably easier than getting all > the peripheral makers to play along. > -- fun on theinquirer.net > > >_______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Petersson, Mats wrote:> Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, the answers to the above > questions are kept secret, and although I work for AMD, I''m not privvy > to the information you ask for. Even if I was, I wouldn''t be allowed to > tell you [or anyone else that didn''t have the NDA]. I know you think > we''re just doing this to either frustrate people or to make people buy > the current hardware even tho'' the next generation is going to be > different. That''s not quite the objective here, but we don''t really want > everyone [especially SOME people in the competing company ;-)] to know > what we''re up to when it comes to next generation hardware. > > >>Is it possible to have even vague comments on this? >>Has a lot to say on nearterm hardware buys. > > > Sorry that I can''t help. I''d love to, and I think you understand that...Of cause I do, but it still had to be tried ;) And no, I don''t think AMD is the least significant bit interested in annoying its custumer base. Matter of fact (my view) is that AMD in the past has produced quite longlived sockets and cpu''s. You may call me a AMD devotee, using the brand since the 2900 days. I''ll place my bet on S939 and hope for a Pacifica enabled cpu - which I feel will be available anyway, given that sockets success. -- Kind regards, Mogens Valentin _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> > It''s hard finding info on approx when Pacifica enabled cpu will be> > available. I''ve heard maybe around may/june ''06. > > I could make you happy, and myself unhappy (i.e. looking for > a different > job) by telling you something, _IF_ I knew. I don''t know, so > there''s no risk that I would leak something ... ;-)Well, it would only make us happy if you knew an *earlier* time frame than may/june 06... Not that I''m one to read between the lines...> > It''s even more difficult finding out whether AMD will support > > S939 with these upcoming cpu''s, or it will be M2. > > Likewise WRT which type of memory, DDR/DDR2... > > I don''t know the answer to this either.>From what I heard the chips are supposed to be plug-n-play compatiblewith existing chips. So, it should support the same memory and motherboards. Of course this is info based on what was publicly released over half a year ago or so, and future looking statements can always change... Like the estimated release of Xen 3.0 seems to keep changing... _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
AMD today announced Pacifica specs and availability. Seems Pacifica will be available as s939 Orleans and M2/940 Windsor series. Semprons will continue as Manila series, without Pacifica. IIUC. Socket 939 are expected to be phased out in the second quarter of 2007. http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20051108A7039.html http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_543~96162,00.html This is good news for me. Seems I can upgrade my Xen development server for a s939 mobo, and later get a Pacifica enabled cpu. -- Kind regards, Mogens Valentin _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users