[fedora-virt] qemu+kvm obsoletes kqemu?
davidsen at tmr.com
Wed Apr 8 21:24:36 UTC 2009
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 08.04.2009 12:37, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>>> p.s. there *have* been unofficial packages for fedora:
>> FYI, RPM Fusion has (a)kmod-kqemu as well.
>>> but it's easier to just say don't go there.
>> I tend to agreee, nevertheless , there are lots of Intels CPUs that
>> don't have VT and we don't have Xen in Fedora, so for some use-cases
>> on Desktops it might be nice (albeit VirtualBox might be the better
>> solution in a lot of those cases).
> so, just to clarify this (which i am wont to do relentlessly), if
> you already have HW virtualization support (VT, AMD-V), kqemu is
> utterly pointless. on the other hand, if you *don't* have HW virt
> support, kqemu will allegedly speed things up but it isn't, strictly
> speaking, necessary. in cases like that, it makes a difference only
> in speed, not in functionality. is that about right?
The difference in speed is the difference between "interesting only as a
proof of concept" and "about 20-30% slower than native mode" if I read
the reports and my notes correctly from back when kqemu was new. The
difference in functionality is the difference between useful and
interesting, so for many machines it matters. Of course you can go to a
distribution which supports xen and do it that way, I guess.
Is there kqemu for x86_64? I see all these ultra-cheap Celeron based
machines with 64 bit but no VM, and it would be great to be able to run
a few small servers on such a machine.
bill davidsen <davidsen at tmr.com>
CTO TMR Associates, Inc
"You are disgraced professional losers. And by the way, give us our money back."
- Representative Earl Pomeroy, Democrat of North Dakota
on the A.I.G. executives who were paid bonuses after a federal bailout.
More information about the Fedora-virt