Do u run with or without KQEMU? if you're running without kqemu,
please retry with kqemu.
As for Windows 2000 guest installation, please use the win2000 hack
parameter (running the command "qemu" alone should show you the
parameter)
Thanks,
Hetz
On 9/15/05, Troy Benjegerdes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I'm running qemu 0.7.2 on a Fedora Core 4 system (Opteron system), with
OpenAFS 1.4.0-rc3.
When I try to install either Windows 2000 or Red Hat WS, I am finding
that if the guest install ISO image is on an AFS filesystem, I get
strange errors during the install. On Windows, I would get 'file
corru
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 10:18:24AM -0700, John R. Hogerhuis wrote:
> Why disgusting?
>
> Perhaps you meant disgusting because the Intel architecture forces a
> virtualizer to handle a bunch of corner cases like this.
>
That is exactly what I mean.
> -- John.
>
--
Infinite complexity begets
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 01:46:58PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> You can't readahead beyond a basic block. Taking a trap for each basic
> block and translating the block is what QEMU does.
>
No, QEMU translates everything from guest machine code into its internal codes.
I'm talking about usi
Thursday, September 15, 2005 12:39 AM Jim C. Brown wrote:
I don't see any code for this in your patch. AFAIK qemu supports this
already.
I didn't know that. Thanks.
Regards,
Kazu
___
Qemu-devel mailing list
Qemu-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists
Jim C. Brown wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 11:27:39PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I reckon kqemu has this same problem... Technically, even in ring 3, if
you run natively, you violate the Popek/Goldberg requirements because of
cpuid. It's just not possible to trap it but it shouldn't ma
> > There are a couple of interesting paravirtualization techniques too.
> > There's the Xen approach (really fast, but very invasive), the L4ka
> > afterburning (theoritically close to as fast, but less invasive), and
> > then of course the extremes like UML.
>
> Not familar with L4ka. I don't bel
Two side footnotes to your comprehensive explanation:
1) with the SKAS host kernel patch you don't have to ptrace the "guest"
processes and performance (and security) is improved quite a bit, I
understand.
2) UML is currently being ported to run in ring 0. Why? Not for running on
native hard
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 09:37 -0400, Jim C. Brown wrote:
> VMware handles kernel code. You are right that x86 code can't be 100%
> virtualized
> (even at the userland level) but VMware uses a lot of nasty disgusting tricks
> in order to work around them. (For example, playing with shadow pagetables
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Jim C. Brown wrote:
Not familar with L4ka. I don't believe that UML does virtualization, it simply
runs linux code 'as is' but intercepts calls to the kernel.
UML does not do hardware virtualization. UML is a special architecture for
the Linux kernel allowing Linux to run
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 12:41:39PM +0900, Kazu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch supports a real hard disk drive by \\.\PhysicalDriveN
> (N=0,1,2,...) on Windows 2000/XP host. Windows 98/Me are not supported.
> You can also use slash like //./PhysicalDriveN. You can see a number in
> Administration Tool
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 11:27:39PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> I reckon kqemu has this same problem... Technically, even in ring 3, if
> you run natively, you violate the Popek/Goldberg requirements because of
> cpuid. It's just not possible to trap it but it shouldn't matter for
> most sof
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 09:48:01PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Jim C. Brown wrote:
>
> The x86 cannot be "virtualized" in the Popek/Goldberg sense, so there's
> a couple of fast emulation techniques that are possible. Other than a
> hand coded dynamic translator, I reckon qemu + kqemu is ab
13 matches
Mail list logo
