6:09 p.m.
FC 10/KDE
what is the best Virtualization program for FC10, to run Windows XP in.
I understand because my AMD Athlon doesn't have a "svm" feature I can't
run KVM, and VM Ware is slow ?
5:24 p.m.
Bill Davidsen wrote:
the last I checked Avi told me that Win98SE did some
stuff in real mode which kvm can't catch,
I believe that depends on the vendor:
According to the [Intel] VT-x spec, guest OSes cannot operate in
real mode… AMD SVM, on the other hand, supports real-mode for
guests…
– http://lwn.net/Articles/182080/
(The article is about Xen and predates KVM, but the hardware is the same.)
Hope this helps,
James.
--
E-mail: james@ | We still have enough spare cardboard sitting around to
aprilcottage.co.uk | send a bus by Parcelforce, although not enough wrapping
| to be sure they wouldn't deliver it broken into two
| pieces. -- Alan Cox
5:48 p.m.
M A Young wrote:
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, Tom Horsley wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:09:04 -0500
> Jim wrote:
>
>> FC 10/KDE
>> what is the best Virtualization program for FC10, to run Windows XP in.
>> I understand because my AMD Athlon doesn't have a "svm" feature I
can't
>> run KVM, and VM Ware is slow ?
>
> Anything you use will be slow without the hardware virtualization
> support - they all have the same problem.
But they aren't all as slow as vmware, nor is hardware virtualization
required for a faster solution, for example Xen does very well without
needing hardware support. However, due to the current development stage,
xen isn't a practical solution for Fedora 10 (upstream development is
usable is some circumstances but yet suitable for a wider audience), but
might be ready during the lifetime of Fedora 11, or for Fedora 12.
Linux can run paravirtualized, but XP not so much. A general problem, which is
why the hardware virtual is helpful. Doesn't seem to help some things, though,
the last I checked Avi told me that Win98SE did some stuff in real mode which
kvm can't catch, I think VMware does, I believe I ran VMware on a 2.4 kernel
"back when."
My guess is that qemu is about as good as the others, give or take 20%. I
actually installed FC10 x86_64 on qemu, although it was... leisurely. Something
to try, at least.
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen(a)tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
11:49 p.m.
Michael Eager wrote:
Actually, it turns out that the software virtualization is
just as fast as the hardware virtualization, perhaps even
faster. Lots of reasons, but one is that once the VM software
rewrites a section of priviledged code, it never touches
it again. With the hardware virtualization support, the VM
interprets it every time it is executed.
For VMware that may be true, but kqemu's (the QEMU software virtualization
accelerator) performance is less than stellar, KVM (hardware
virtualization) is probably a lot faster (though I haven't done any direct
comparison myself yet).
Kevin Kofler
7:35 p.m.
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 00:54:47 +0000 (GMT)
M A Young wrote:
But they aren't all as slow as vmware, nor is hardware
virtualization
required for a faster solution, for example Xen does very well without
needing hardware support.
The original question was about running Windows XP. I've never heard of
a paravirt kernel generally available for XP, and without paravirt
it needs the hardware emulation (or the sort of software emulation
vmware does which I didn't think xen had incorporated, but maybe I
wasn't paying attention when it happened :-).
6:54 p.m.
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, Tom Horsley wrote:
On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:09:04 -0500
Jim wrote:
> FC 10/KDE
> what is the best Virtualization program for FC10, to run Windows XP in.
> I understand because my AMD Athlon doesn't have a "svm" feature I
can't
> run KVM, and VM Ware is slow ?
Anything you use will be slow without the hardware virtualization
support - they all have the same problem.
But they aren't all as slow as vmware, nor is hardware virtualization
required for a faster solution, for example Xen does very well without
needing hardware support. However, due to the current development stage,
xen isn't a practical solution for Fedora 10 (upstream development is
usable is some circumstances but yet suitable for a wider audience), but
might be ready during the lifetime of Fedora 11, or for Fedora 12.
Michael Young
6:22 p.m.
On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:09:04 -0500
Jim wrote:
FC 10/KDE
what is the best Virtualization program for FC10, to run Windows XP in.
I understand because my AMD Athlon doesn't have a "svm" feature I can't
run KVM, and VM Ware is slow ?
Anything you use will be slow without the hardware virtualization
support - they all have the same problem.
8:23 a.m.
James Wilkinson wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
> the last I checked Avi told me that Win98SE did some
> stuff in real mode which kvm can't catch,
I believe that depends on the vendor:
According to the [Intel] VT-x spec, guest OSes cannot operate in
real mode… AMD SVM, on the other hand, supports real-mode for
guests…
– http://lwn.net/Articles/182080/
(The article is about Xen and predates KVM, but the hardware is the same.)
Hope this helps,
A most useful article, although getting a bit dated, many of the real mode
issues have been addressed in software (possibly using VM86 mode). XP runs fine
under KVM, so the O.P. is free to use the hypervisor of choice.
I confess I use kvm started from command line, although I am using virt-manager
in a few places where it makes sense to do so as a trade-off of complexity of
install vs. complexity of operation.
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen(a)tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
6:53 p.m.
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 18:48 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
M A Young wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, Tom Horsley wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:09:04 -0500
>> Jim wrote:
>>
>>> FC 10/KDE
>>> what is the best Virtualization program for FC10, to run Windows XP in.
>>> I understand because my AMD Athlon doesn't have a "svm"
feature I can't
>>> run KVM, and VM Ware is slow ?
>>
>> Anything you use will be slow without the hardware virtualization
>> support - they all have the same problem.
>
> But they aren't all as slow as vmware, nor is hardware virtualization
> required for a faster solution, for example Xen does very well without
> needing hardware support. However, due to the current development stage,
> xen isn't a practical solution for Fedora 10 (upstream development is
> usable is some circumstances but yet suitable for a wider audience), but
> might be ready during the lifetime of Fedora 11, or for Fedora 12.
>
Linux can run paravirtualized, but XP not so much. A general problem, which is
why the hardware virtual is helpful. Doesn't seem to help some things, though,
the last I checked Avi told me that Win98SE did some stuff in real mode which
kvm can't catch, I think VMware does, I believe I ran VMware on a 2.4 kernel
"back when."
My guess is that qemu is about as good as the others, give or take 20%. I
actually installed FC10 x86_64 on qemu, although it was... leisurely. Something
to try, at least.
On this kind of hardware, you are likely to find that VMware Workstation
is the fastest of all of the above alternatives. KVM / QEMU / Xen all
require hardware virtualization (Intel VT or AMD-V) to run optimally.
VMware was around long before this hardware feature was available -
that's part of how and why they were as successful as they were. They
are still by far the fastest in this hardware as well.
In addition, you will find that VMware is faster when it comes to
supporting older operating systems in VMs because the older ones do not
have the hooks in them to understand and leverage paravirtualization
calls. KVM and especially the Xen derivatives just don't handle this as
well - if at all.
I would challenge the person as saying VMware was slow - especially in
this regard is misinformed at best.
Cheers,
Chris
--
==================================
By all means marry;
If you get a good wife, you'll be happy.
If you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher.
--Socrates
8:40 p.m.
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
There's no good solution. You will be able to run qemu, in
software
emulation mode. Depending on how fast your processor is, and how CPU
intensive your Windows session is, it'll be either acceptably slow or
very slow indeed.
Pure software emulation in QEMU is extremely slow. The kqemu kernel module
which you can get at RPM Fusion can help a bit. But without hardware
virtualization you won't get to speeds comparable with KVM with any
QEMU-based solution.
Kevin Kofler
2:01 a.m.
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 07:09:04PM -0500, Jim wrote:
FC 10/KDE
what is the best Virtualization program for FC10, to run Windows XP in.
I understand because my AMD Athlon doesn't have a "svm" feature I can't
run KVM, and VM Ware is slow ?
There's no good solution. You will be able to run qemu, in software
emulation mode. Depending on how fast your processor is, and how CPU
intensive your Windows session is, it'll be either acceptably slow or
very slow indeed.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines. Boot with a
live CD or over the network (PXE) and turn machines into Xen guests.
http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-p2v
2 a.m.
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 12:54:47AM +0000, M A Young wrote:
But they aren't all as slow as vmware, nor is hardware
virtualization
required for a faster solution, for example Xen does very well without
needing hardware support.
Xen can't virtualize Windows without hardware support.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many
powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc.
http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top
9:18 p.m.
Tom Horsley wrote:
On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:09:04 -0500
Jim wrote:
> FC 10/KDE
> what is the best Virtualization program for FC10, to run Windows XP in.
> I understand because my AMD Athlon doesn't have a "svm" feature I
can't
> run KVM, and VM Ware is slow ?
Anything you use will be slow without the hardware virtualization
support - they all have the same problem.
Actually, it turns out that the software virtualization is
just as fast as the hardware virtualization, perhaps even
faster. Lots of reasons, but one is that once the VM software
rewrites a section of priviledged code, it never touches
it again. With the hardware virtualization support, the VM
interprets it every time it is executed.
I use VMware for WinXP. It runs reasonably fast.
--
Michael Eager eager(a)eagercon.com
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
8:38 a.m.
On 03/04/2009 07:09 PM, Jim wrote:
FC 10/KDE
what is the best Virtualization program for FC10, to run Windows XP in.
I understand because my AMD Athlon doesn't have a "svm" feature I
can't run KVM, and VM Ware is slow ?
My experience with my HP 6125 AMD 64 laptop was that Virtualbox runs
much better than my previous VMWare installaiton. Currently, Virtualbox
2.1.4 is the most current release. Initially, I installed it to run
Realplayer 10. While there is a native Realplayer on Linux, the videos
my wife wanted needed MSIE to authenticate, and WINE (and Crossover
Office) do not support RealPlayer 10. With VMWare, the images would
freeze, but with Virtualbox, it works well. However, we use VMWare
Workstation at work with RHEL 5.2 as the guest OS, and performance is
reasonable. I use KVM/QEMU at home with no complaints.
--
Jerry Feldman <gaf(a)blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id: 537C5846
PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846
7:38 p.m.
Tom Horsley wrote:
The original question was about running Windows XP. I've never
heard of
a paravirt kernel generally available for XP, and without paravirt
it needs the hardware emulation (or the sort of software emulation
vmware does which I didn't think xen had incorporated, but maybe I
wasn't paying attention when it happened :-).
kqemu and VirtualBox OSE can do software virtualization in Free Software.
kqemu works with QEMU and is available from RPM Fusion, VirtualBox OSE is
being packaged for RPM Fusion.
Kevin Kofler
5521
days inactive
5541
days old
14 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
Bill Davidsen -
Christopher A Williams -
James Wilkinson -
Jerry Feldman -
Jim -
Kevin Kofler -
M A Young -
Michael Eager -
Richard W.M. Jones -
Tom Horsley