2007/9/7, slubman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Le Vendredi 7 Septembre 2007 09:15, Roman Kyrylych a écrit: > > 2007/9/7, Paul Mattal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Wanted to briefly inquire about KVM, for all those out there who use > > > it for virtualization. > > > > > > At first Arch used KVM modules in the kernel, then we switched over > > > to trying external ones, then we switched back to using the kernel ones. > > > > > > This seems to me, anyway, to be for pretty good reason: I tried > > > building the kvm 36 release against our kernel. Stuff went very well > > > for a while and seemed fast, but while I was running a vm, my entire > > > screen went black and my machine hung hard; I had to reboot. Pretty bad! > > > > > > So my question: Has anyone had experiences with KVM that suggest we > > > should be doing anything other than staying with the modules in the > > > kernel? They may not be the latest and greatest, but they seem to be > > > pretty stable. It seems to me like the right balance of > > > > > > Please share any thoughts/experiences you may have had. > > > > Additionally I'd like to know if anyone had experience with running > > in-kernel bundled kvm modules but with latest userspace patch. > > I'm actually using the bundled kvm modules (under Arch32), with the userspace > from kvm-33. I've got no matter with it. > > I personally, found it more intereting to have kvm modules in a separate > package, but that would involve releasing qemu more often too (or have a > qemu-kvm package) >
Thanks for report! The reason why we decided to use kvm modules provided by kernel is that they are more stable. However it seems that userspace is not recieving large risky changes and it may be good idea to update qemu package with every new kvm userspace patch. *shrugs* -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич) _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
