On Thu, October 9, 2008 12:09, James B. Byrne wrote:
So:
# cd /path/to/vm/os/install_tree
# cp -pr /media/CentOS_5.2_Final ./
Thereafter the Install Media URL becomes:
/path/to/vm/os/install_tree/CentOS_5.2_Final
Well, RH implementation of xen appears far less useful from an
James B. Byrne wrote:
So, on my test machine that supports only paravirtualization I can only
run 64 bit versions of a supported paravirtualized guest OS. This limits
me to essentially CentOS-4 and CentOS-5 ix_64. I was hoping to be able to
run CentOS-5.2 i386 as a guest as there is no 64
On Thursday 09 October 2008 12:31, nate wrote:
Now it looks like Red hat has woken up and seen it is
a dead end too and is moving to KVM as you mentioned.
where did you read this? I have just started with xen too but I don't want to
be left hanging...
James B. Byrne wrote on Thu, 9 Oct 2008 12:27:15 -0400 (EDT):
Oh well, this was just a trial to see what was involved with virtualization.
James, stop talking to yourself ;-) It's good to look at stock documentation,
but it's not enough. Search this list archive for xen and have a look at the
Nate wrote on Thu, 9 Oct 2008 11:36:13 -0700 (PDT):
ut KVM offers more innovation
and faster features
I would hope that it actually offers just faster, but AFAIK that is what
it doesn't. AFAIK a PV CentOS 5 on Xen runs much better and faster than in
KVM. Is that true? I've used KVM only once
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
I would hope that it actually offers just faster, but AFAIK that is what
it doesn't. AFAIK a PV CentOS 5 on Xen runs much better and faster than in
KVM. Is that true? I've used KVM only once for a non-PV guest (old Suse
System) and not with the kernel module.
I think KVM
6 matches
Mail list logo
