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

Re: [fedora-virt] qemu+kvm obsoletes kqemu?



On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 01:31:57PM -0400, 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:
> > >
> > >    http://atrpms.net/dist/f10/kqemu/
> >
> > 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?
just a tiny consideration: kqemu will do all that, _if_ it works.

As chris already mentioned, is does not get active development in a while.

But you're right in the big pic. It won't provide any extra functionality
besides speed.


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