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

Re: serious virtualization without HW support?



On Wed, 1 Apr 2009, Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak wrote:

> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > and it occurs to me to ask whether anyone would want to get
> > *seriously* into virtualization without having machines with those
> > extensions.
>
> No.

  i thought as much.  i asked only because i've had a couple people
ask me whether they could set up a couple virtual web servers on some
older systems that were just hanging around, doing not much of
anything.  and they really didn't want to shell out any more $$$ for
newer systems with the virt extensions.  i suggested it really wasn't
worth trying to save money like that.

> I run Windows as a guest OS on several machines. With the Intel vmx
> flag, performance is extremely good and quite usable.
>
> Without the vmx flag, it is useless. It is too slow to tolerate.
>
> Most new machines now have the virtualization flags. It's always
> worth checking before you buy, though.

  i do recall reading somewhere that, yes, you have to be careful to
check that the system not only has the virt extension but that it's
*turned on*.  i can't recall where i read that, does anyone have a
URL?  something about selling a system cheaper because you've simply
disabled the extension, but advertising it as if it *does* have it.

rday
--


========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry:
    Have classroom, will lecture.

http://crashcourse.ca                          Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
========================================================================


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