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?
waitaminnit ... i'm not sure i believe me.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry.
Web page: http://crashcourse.ca
Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
========================================================================