[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [et-mgmt-tools] virtinst: acpi/apic == FALSE for Windows XP



Le mardi 07 juillet 2009 à 09:53, Chris Lalancette a écrit :
> Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 04:50:59PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
> >> On 07/05/2009 08:27 AM, Guido Günther wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 06:09:01PM +0200, Guido Günther wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>> virtinst has:
> >>>>
> >>>> "winxp":{ "label": "Microsoft Windows XP (x86)",
> >>>>                   "acpi": False, "apic": False },
> >>>>
> >>>> I couldn't find any reason for this in the hg logs and
> >>>>   http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=512439
> >>>
> >>> The correct URL is:
> >>>   http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=533201
> >>> Cheers,
> >>>  -- Guido
> >>
> >> AFAIK this was done because windows installs on xen used to choke if
> >> ACPI was enabled. There is an old wiki page corroborating that here, no
> >> idea if it is still relevant, or if there were other issues at play:
> >>
> >> http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/XenWindowsACPI
> >
> > I think that's obsolete and nowadays ACPI (and APIC) should be enabled
> > for Xen Windows guests.
> >
> > Please correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> You are probably correct, although testing (especially on things like
> RHEL-5 Xen) is in order before making the change for Xen as well.

As I wrote in a mail to Cole, I made some tests on Debian Squeeze with Xen 
3.2.1.

I successfully installed a Windows XP virtual machine with ACPI enabled, the 
installation ended without any manual intervention (excepted those requested 
by the Windows setup). But I also installed a similar virtual machine without 
ACPI. The virtual machine with ACPI enabled seems to be slower than the 
virtual machine without ACPI. I suppose it's a bug in Xen 3.2.1, perhaps it 
is fixed in Xen 3.3 or 3.4 ? Same problem with Windows Server 2003 (ACPI is 
enabled in OS dictionary for this variant corrseponding to this Windows 
version). I think there is no difference in ACPI handling between Windows XP 
x86, x86_64 and Windows Server 2003 so there is no reason to have different 
options in the OS dictionary...

-- 
Laurent Léonard

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]