[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Virtualization of OpenBSD 3.9 on Xen
- To: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: Re: Virtualization of OpenBSD 3.9 on Xen
- From: Dave Feustel <dfeustel_(_at_)_mindspring_(_dot_)_com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 12:48:33 -0500
On Friday 21 April 2006 11:10, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan_(_at_)_kaltenbrunner_(_dot_)_cc> wrote:
> Dave Feustel wrote:
> > On Saturday 15 April 2006 17:53, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 17:39:10 -0500, Dave Feustel wrote:
> >>>AMD Pacifica and Intel's VT make possible the virtualization of unmodified
> >>>operating systems. Is it still necessary to add code to the hypervisor to
> >>>support specific operating systems, or can Xen, as written, support any
> >>>arbitrary OS that successfully boots on a PC? (I'm thinking of the BSDs
> >>While theoretically,
> >>VT and SVM ought to allow any OS to run under Xen, in practice, if an OS
> >>hasn't been tested as a guest under Xen, it is likely to turn up some bugs
> >>or incompleteness. Over time, this will certainly be a less of an issue.
> >>The problem has to do with the fact that different OS's will use different
> >>instructions when accessing things like page tables. Right now, Xen only
> >>emulates the instructions that we know are used by the systems we test
> >>with (things like Linux and certain versions of Windows).
> OpenBSD 3.9 works quite fine (installed using the native installer in
> the virtualized environment!) as an unmodified guest on my Intel VT box,
> with following caveats:
> *) pcn(4) - aka AMD Pcnet does not seem to work well with the emulated
> one (send works - receive does not)
> *) ne(4) does work but is complaining about corrupted nic memory under
> heavy traffic (does not seem to affect it much other than logging th errors)
Lose, v., experience a loss, get rid of, "lose the weight"
Loose, adj., not tight, let go, free, "loose clothing"