Re: [Qemu-devel] linux guests and ksm performance
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi stefa...@gmail.com wrote: The other approach is a memory page discard mechanism - which obviously requires more code changes than zeroing freed pages. The advantage is that we don't take the brute-force and CPU intensive approach of zeroing pages. It would be like a fine-grained ballooning feature. (disclaimer: i don't know the code, i'm just guessing) does KVM emulate the MMU? if so, is there any 'unmap page' primitive? -- Javier
Re: [Qemu-devel] [GSoC 2010] Pass-through filesystem support.
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Mohammed Gamal m.gamal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Jamie Lokier ja...@shareable.org wrote: To throw a spanner in, the most widely supported filesystem across operating systems is probably NFS, version 2 :-) Remember that Windows usage on a VM is not some rare use case, and it'd be a little bit of a pain from a user's perspective to have to install a third party NFS client for every VM they use. Having something supported on the VM out of the box is a better option IMO. i don't think virtio-CIFS has any more support out of the box (on any system) than virtio-9P. -- Javier
Re: [Qemu-devel] [GSoC 2010] Pass-through filesystem support.
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Mohammed Gamal m.gamal...@gmail.com wrote: That's all good and well. The question now is which direction would the community prefer to go. Would everyone be just happy with virtio-9p passthrough? Would it support multiple OSs (Windows comes to mind here)? Or would we eventually need to patch Samba for passthrough filesystems? found this: http://code.google.com/p/ninefs/ it's a BSD-licensed 9p client for windows i have no idea of how stable / complete / trustable it is; but might be some start -- Javier
[Qemu-devel] Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] e1000 emulation code
On Wednesday 09 January 2008, Dor Laor wrote: Some figures: Linux rx 350Mbps, tx 150bps, Windows rx 700mbps, tx 100 mbps. very nice! in a related note, the VMWare tools package, which is supposed to 'enhance performance' by installing 'specially tuned' drivers into a guest, doesn't include net or HD drivers for linux! i was surprised, but it simply said that using e1000 emulation on 64bit linux was optimised enough. since i saw good performance (no hard benchmarks, but definitely not bad); i thought that they do some paravirtualizification at runtime as part of their software recompiling (because they're much older than HVM-capable processors). now it seems that there are higher-level hardware that can be emulated far more efficiently than the original set of QEMU hardware. the next step would be to emulate LSI SCSI chips, eh? -- Javier signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
