On 04/08/2013 19:55, Pandu Poluan wrote: > > On Aug 4, 2013 5:48 PM, "Alan McKinnon" <alan.mckin...@gmail.com > <mailto:alan.mckin...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> On 02/08/2013 23:08, Kerin Millar wrote: >> > Regarding VirtualBox, it does support a virtio-net type ethernet adapter >> > so you would certainly benefit from enabling CONFIG_VIRTIO_NET in a > guest. >> > >> > I'm not entirely certain as to where VirtualBox stands with regard to >> > PVOPS support [1] but it would probably also help to enable >> > CONFIG_PARAVIRT_GUEST (even though there are no directly applicable >> > sub-options). >> >> >> How well or otherwise does it perform? >> >> I have a bunch of minimal VMs in a dev environment using Intel Pro1000, >> and have considered changing to virtio. But it's a lot of work to do[1] >> so someone else's opinion first would be nice. >> >> [1] They are Gentoo VMs but don't have sources installed and can't >> compile a kernel with the mere 256G RAM I give them. So the entire >> kernel+modules has to be built somewhere else and scp'ed to the VM. >> hence "lot of work" >> >> -- >> Alan McKinnon >> alan.mckin...@gmail.com <mailto:alan.mckin...@gmail.com> >> >> > > Good Lord! Your VM has 256 GB of RAM?? > > That's even larger than some virtualization hosts we have in the company...
:-) They are *gentoo* vms though, and have to do things non-gentoo hosts don't have to do. Like build gcc for example, and run portage. Both of those beasts are memory-hungry. Without them, they would probably run just fine on 64M but I haven't bothered trying - the host has 16G and even with every VM running they still us less than a third of all memory I sometimes shake my head and wonder about current RAM usage. I'm old enough to remember programming a Sinclair Mk XIV with 256 bytes of RAM. An upgrade to 512 bytes was a significant and rather expensive upgrade :-) -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
