Re: VMWare/Virtualbox virtio network drivers?

On 9/6/11 8:03 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: On 7 September 2011 09:32, Adam Vande More wrote: On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Stephen Hocking wrote: Am wondering if anyone has done drivers the these sorts of network interfaces that are offered by VMWare& Virtual box. I know that on some Linux VM

Re: VMWare/Virtualbox virtio network drivers?

On 7 September 2011 09:32, Adam Vande More wrote: > On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Stephen Hocking > wrote: > >> Am wondering if anyone has done drivers the these sorts of  network >> interfaces that are offered by VMWare & Virtual box. I know that on >> some Linux VMs I run, performance went fro

Re: VMWare/Virtualbox virtio network drivers?

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Stephen Hocking wrote: > Am wondering if anyone has done drivers the these sorts of network > interfaces that are offered by VMWare & Virtual box. I know that on > some Linux VMs I run, performance went from 20MB/s to 30MB/s to an NFS > server which I swicthed to t

Re: VMWARE-Player

On Sun, January 7, 2007 7:46 am, Bill Moran wrote: > "Christoph P. Kukulies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> does FreeBSD provide the ability to run VMWARE-Player for Linux and >> run VMs in it? > > No. To the best of my knowledge it's not possible to run any VMWare > product under FreeBSD. VMWare

Re: VMWARE-Player

"Christoph P. Kukulies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > does FreeBSD provide the ability to run VMWARE-Player for Linux and > run VMs in it? No. To the best of my knowledge it's not possible to run any VMWare product under FreeBSD. Qemu will run VMWare virtual machines under some conditi

Re: VMWARE GSX Port?

Aniruddha Bohra wrote: On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 13:28 -0800, Kip Macy wrote: -CURRENT runs on 3.0 as a domU. There is partial dom0 support. The changes have not gone back into the mainline because xenbus is extremely difficult to integrate cleanly. You can check on the state of the xen3 branch in

Re: VMWARE GSX Port?

On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 13:28 -0800, Kip Macy wrote: > -CURRENT runs on 3.0 as a domU. There is partial dom0 support. The > changes have not gone back into the mainline because xenbus is > extremely difficult to integrate cleanly. You can check on the state > of the xen3 branch in perforce. At sever

Re: VMWARE GSX Port?

-CURRENT runs on 3.0 as a domU. There is partial dom0 support. The changes have not gone back into the mainline because xenbus is extremely difficult to integrate cleanly. You can check on the state of the xen3 branch in perforce. -Kip On 3/2/06, Ashok Shrestha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >

Re: VMWARE GSX Port?

According to the Xen website, it's been ported to FreeBSD [http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/OSCompatibility]. Anybody know where port is? -Ashok Shrestha On 2/28/06, Seán C. Farley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Mike Silbersack wrote: > > > On Sat, 25 Feb 2006, Scott Long wr

Re: VMWARE GSX Port?

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Mike Silbersack wrote: On Sat, 25 Feb 2006, Scott Long wrote: Ashok Shrestha wrote: VMWARE GSX was released recently for free. [http://www.vmware.com/news/releases/server_beta.html] Is anyone working on a port for this? I've started on it, but I haven't made much progr

Re: VMWARE GSX Port?

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006, Scott Long wrote: Ashok Shrestha wrote: VMWARE GSX was released recently for free. [http://www.vmware.com/news/releases/server_beta.html] Is anyone working on a port for this? I've started on it, but I haven't made much progress yet. Scott Anyone who's interested i

Re: VMWARE GSX Port?

Ashok Shrestha wrote: VMWARE GSX was released recently for free. [http://www.vmware.com/news/releases/server_beta.html] Is anyone working on a port for this? I've started on it, but I haven't made much progress yet. Scott ___ freebsd-hackers@freeb

Re: vmware reads disk on non-sector boundary

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bakul Shah writes: >Oh well. >I am not going to argue about this over and over and over >again. Thankyou, a very wise decision sir! -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer |

Re: vmware reads disk on non-sector boundary

On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bakul Shah writes: > >How hard would it be to bring back block devices without GEOM? > > Not at all hard, pretty trivial in fact. The easiest way is to restore the old code and use a minor number hack or ioctl to enab

Re: vmware reads disk on non-sector boundary

Bakul Shah wrote: > phk writes: > > You are welcome to peruse the mail-archives to find out such > > historically interesting decisions. > > I am aware of the technical arguments discussed via -arch, > -current & -hackers. I just don't agree with them (seems > like most hackers who are afraid to

Re: vmware reads disk on non-sector boundary

phk writes: > You are welcome to peruse the mail-archives to find out such > historically interesting decisions. I am aware of the technical arguments discussed via -arch, -current & -hackers. I just don't agree with them (seems like most hackers who are afraid to cross you). > You are not welc

Re: vmware reads disk on non-sector boundary

On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 12:53:52AM +0200, Mark Santcroos wrote: > > So 'ignoring' the historic facts, and assuming that we just want block > devices, we can do such a thing in GEOM in the future? > > Is this something you will be doing yourself Poul, or is it just that you > are saying that it i

Re: vmware reads disk on non-sector boundary

On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 05:57:56PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Evans writes: > > >> If a buffered access-mode on block devices is desired, it should > >> be implemented either as an ioctl controllable feature, or as > >> a GEOM module. The latter is pr

Re: vmware reads disk on non-sector boundary

On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Bakul Shah wrote: > > It was desired, and was sort of promised. > > I never understood why removal of block devices was allowed > in the first place. phk's reasons don't seem strong enough > to any unix wizard I have talked to. Did the majority of the > core really think

Re: vmware reads disk on non-sector boundary

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bakul Shah writes: >I never understood why removal of block devices was allowed >in the first place. You are welcome to peruse the mail-archives to find out such historically interesting decisions. You are not welcome to build another bikeshed over it. >How hard

Re: vmware reads disk on non-sector boundary

On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 09:37:07AM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote: > > Is there a write up somewhere on what GEOM is and its > benefits? I'd hate to see it become the default without > understanding it (and no, reading source code doesn't do it). > Bakul, there's been ample discussion of what GEOM i

Re: vmware reads disk on non-sector boundary

At 10:11 AM +0200 10/3/02, Mark Santcroos wrote: >On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 09:04:04AM +0100, Ian Dowse wrote: >> See the patch I posted in: >> >> >> >http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=0+6285+/usr/local/www/db/text/2002/freebsd-emulation/20020908.freebsd-emulation >> >> There may

Re: vmware reads disk on non-sector boundary

> It was desired, and was sort of promised. I never understood why removal of block devices was allowed in the first place. phk's reasons don't seem strong enough to any unix wizard I have talked to. Did the majority of the core really think the change was warranted? Removing compatibility whe

Re: vmware reads disk on non-sector boundary

Ian Dowse wrote: > > In message , Garance A Drosihn writes: > >I also have a partition with freebsd-current from two or three days > >ago, and all the latest versions of the ports. Every time I try to > >start vmware2 on the newer system, the hardware dies.

Re: vmware reads disk on non-sector boundary

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Evans writes: >> If a buffered access-mode on block devices is desired, it should >> be implemented either as an ioctl controllable feature, or as >> a GEOM module. The latter is probably by far the easiest way. > >It was desired, and was sort of promised.

Re: vmware reads disk on non-sector boundary

On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mark Santcroos writes: > >On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 09:50:45PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: > >> Unbreaking block devices would be a better solution. Without buffering, > >>... > >What was the reason for the removal of blo

Re: vmware reads disk on non-sector boundary

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mark Santcroos writes: >On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 09:50:45PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: >> Unbreaking block devices would be a better solution. Without buffering, >> reads of raw disks using an unbuffered linux_read() might be >> times slower than they should be. > >

Re: vmware reads disk on non-sector boundary

On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 09:50:45PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: > Unbreaking block devices would be a better solution. Without buffering, > reads of raw disks using an unbuffered linux_read() might be > times slower than they should be. You are right. The quick and dirty hack I had in mind was les

Re: vmware reads disk on non-sector boundary

On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Mark Santcroos wrote: > I have an almost-ready patch that implements linux_read() syscall. This > will check if we are reading from a raw disk and in that case it will > enlarge the read() to the next sector boundary. I have it working in the > kernel but I have problems retur

Re: vmware reads disk on non-sector boundary

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mark Santcroos writes: >On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 09:04:04AM +0100, Ian Dowse wrote: >> There may still be further issues, but it allowed me to use vmware2 >> on a current from a week or two ago. > >That's only for virtual disks, and that is not where the problem is (

Re: vmware reads disk on non-sector boundary

On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 09:04:04AM +0100, Ian Dowse wrote: > See the patch I posted in: > > >http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=0+6285+/usr/local/www/db/text/2002/freebsd-emulation/20020908.freebsd-emulation > > There may still be further issues, but it allowed me to use vmware2

Re: vmware reads disk on non-sector boundary

In message , Garance A Drosihn writes: >I also have a partition with freebsd-current from two or three days >ago, and all the latest versions of the ports. Every time I try to >start vmware2 on the newer system, the hardware dies. Sometimes it >automaticall

Re: vmware reads disk on non-sector boundary

At 7:52 PM +0200 9/25/02, Mark Santcroos wrote: >On Wed, Sep 25, 2002, Mark Santcroos wrote: > > A fact is that vmware did work up until a few months. I didn't do > > a binary search yet. That is last resort... > >Anyone running a -current of several months old and using vmware2? >If so, can you

Re: vmware reads disk on non-sector boundary

On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 01:35:43PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > Take a look at /sys/compat/linux/linux_stats.c, > > > > revision 1.29 > > date: 2001/01/14 23:33:50; author: joe; state: Exp; lines: +18 -11 > > Instead of hard coding the major numbers for IDE and SCSI disks

Re: vmware reads disk on non-sector boundary

On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 07:50:36PM +0100, Josef Karthauser wrote: > It took a while to find, but this is the hack I was referring to: > > Take a look at /sys/compat/linux/linux_stats.c, Thanks for taking the effort for looking this up. However, the function in question - newstat_copyout - is not

Re: vmware reads disk on non-sector boundary

On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Josef Karthauser wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 09:52:37AM +0100, Josef Karthauser wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 09:47:33AM +0100, Bruce M Simpson wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 09:39:30PM +0100, Josef Karthauser wrote: > > > > I thought that we hacked around t

Re: vmware reads disk on non-sector boundary

On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 09:52:37AM +0100, Josef Karthauser wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 09:47:33AM +0100, Bruce M Simpson wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 09:39:30PM +0100, Josef Karthauser wrote: > > > I thought that we hacked around this in the linuxulator 18 months ago > > > by transparen

Re: vmware reads disk on non-sector boundary

On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 09:47:33AM +0100, Bruce M Simpson wrote: > On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 09:39:30PM +0100, Josef Karthauser wrote: > > I thought that we hacked around this in the linuxulator 18 months ago > > by transparently converting block calls into character calls behind the > > scenes. Ei

Re: vmware reads disk on non-sector boundary

On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 09:39:30PM +0100, Josef Karthauser wrote: > I thought that we hacked around this in the linuxulator 18 months ago > by transparently converting block calls into character calls behind the > scenes. Either this has been removed or something else is wrong. This isn't the ca

Re: vmware reads disk on non-sector boundary

On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 11:29:12AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > vmware used the blocking ("b" devices) interface to disks that do > blocking for you. > > Some well meaning but misguided individuals removed block devices > without providing an alernate way of doing this. It should be possible >

Re: vmware reads disk on non-sector boundary

On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 11:29:12AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > vmware used the blocking ("b" devices) interface to disks that do > blocking for you. > > Some well meaning but misguided individuals removed block devices > without providing an alernate way of doing this. It should be possible >

Re: vmware reads disk on non-sector boundary

vmware used the blocking ("b" devices) interface to disks that do blocking for you. Some well meaning but misguided individuals removed block devices without providing an alernate way of doing this. It should be possible to do the equivalent of a vn device that accepts misalligned accesses and re

Re: vmware reads disk on non-sector boundary

On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 07:52:17PM +0200, Mark Santcroos wrote: > [freebsd-emulation@ bcc'ed] > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 07:47:48PM +0200, Mark Santcroos wrote: > > A fact is that vmware did work up until a few months. I didn't do a binary > > search yet. That is last resort... > > Anyone runni

Re: vmware reads disk on non-sector boundary

[freebsd-emulation@ bcc'ed] On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 07:47:48PM +0200, Mark Santcroos wrote: > A fact is that vmware did work up until a few months. I didn't do a binary > search yet. That is last resort... Anyone running a -current of several months old and using vmware2? If so, can you please k

Re: vmware reads disk on non-sector boundary

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mark Santcroos writes: >On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 07:41:44PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> >The fact that this did work, was it a bug or did this come out due to some >> >other change. The stacktrace from read(2) is below. >> >> This hasn't worked for a long tim

Re: vmware reads disk on non-sector boundary

On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 07:41:44PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >The fact that this did work, was it a bug or did this come out due to some > >other change. The stacktrace from read(2) is below. > > This hasn't worked for a long time in -current. Long as in > 6 months? By looking at the co

Re: vmware reads disk on non-sector boundary

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mark Santcroos writes: >Vmware2 stopped running from both md and ad devices. Virtual disks still >work. It is caused by a read that is not on sector boundary. > >Should a program be able to read non-sector sized chunks from a raw disk >yes or no? What is the desire

Re: VMware 3 on FreeBSD?

> Ah. I installed the vmware2 port, *then* the vmware3 rpm (using rpm2cpio). > This just used the existing vmmon module. I assume more tweaking will > be necessary as was the case for vmware2. Does vmware3 really work with 'vmmon' version2? --- VMware Workstation Error: Could not get vmmon module

Re: VMware 3 on FreeBSD?

On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 04:30:30PM +0200, Stijn Hoop wrote: > > This is purely speculation as to how USB devices might be handled. > > Maybe someone more in the know can port the usbdevfs (as an aside, is > that a Linuxism? Why not use a standard devfs?) usbdevfs is a Linuxism. devfs's semantic

Re: VMware 3 on FreeBSD?

On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 02:54:06PM +0100, Bruce M Simpson wrote: > On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 03:31:59PM +0200, Stijn Hoop wrote: > > You have it running?! I'm still struggling to get a vmmon module, without > [snip] > > Ah. I installed the vmware2 port, *then* the vmware3 rpm (using rpm2cpio). > Th

Re: VMware 3 on FreeBSD?

On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 03:31:59PM +0200, Stijn Hoop wrote: > You have it running?! I'm still struggling to get a vmmon module, without [snip] Ah. I installed the vmware2 port, *then* the vmware3 rpm (using rpm2cpio). This just used the existing vmmon module. I assume more tweaking will be necess

Re: VMware 3 on FreeBSD?

On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 02:23:51PM +0100, Bruce M Simpson wrote: > On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 12:37:47PM +0200, Mark Santcroos wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 09:20:12AM +0100, Bruce M Simpson wrote: > > > Having said that though, I have had 3.0 running as well as 2.0, under > >

Re: VMware 3 on FreeBSD?

On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 12:37:47PM +0200, Mark Santcroos wrote: > On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 09:20:12AM +0100, Bruce M Simpson wrote: > > Having said that though, I have had 3.0 running as well as 2.0, under >^^ > Can you elaborate a bit more please? Pr

Re: VMware 3 on FreeBSD?

On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 09:20:12AM +0100, Bruce M Simpson wrote: > Having said that though, I have had 3.0 running as well as 2.0, under ^^ Can you elaborate a bit more please? Probably your definition of 'running' is less strict than mine. Mark --

Re: VMware 3 on FreeBSD?

Of course we run Vmware 2 under emulation. So vmware 3 MUST be run under emulation. As has been said before, it probably runs but the setup program looks for too many linux specifics and doesn't generate a good config file. It just takes someone to figure out what it needs. On Wed, 28 Aug 2002,

Re: VMware 3 on FreeBSD?

On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 11:09:57AM -0400, Richard Stanaford wrote: > The VMWare documentation for even version 3.1 indicates FreeBSD support > as a client OS only. If you check the small print, that's what it says. Having said that though, I have had 3.0 running as well as 2.0, under -STABLE, us

Re: VMware 3 on FreeBSD?

You might get it to run under Linux emulation... I've never tried it though. The VMWare documentation for even version 3.1 indicates FreeBSD support as a client OS only. I assume you knew that, but I wanted to save you the trouble of a possible "wild-goose-chase" id you didn't. Good luck! -Ric

Re: VMware 3 on FreeBSD?

On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 02:30:54PM +0200, Stijn Hoop wrote: > Hi, > > sent this to -questions a week ago, got no response, so I'm asking > again here: is it possible to run VMware 3 on -STABLE? If so, how? > I noticed there is no port like there is for VMware 2, so that's > why I'm asking. > It

Re: vmware guest networking not working - details

Well Joe, I will try to give you some pointers as I have VMware(2.0.3) working fine on 4.3 stable, running W2K. Here is my setup - local private LAN i.e. 192.168.0.* - FreeBSD box has an ethernet address set to 192.168.0.254 - Other boxes/vmware hosts have addresses 192.168.0.5...n - All bo

Re: vmware boot problem (xp host, freebsd guest)

Glenn Gombert wrote: > > Here is a patch that was posted to the list a couple weeks ago, that > needs to be applied to make FreeBSD uner vmware work reliably.. > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Robert Watsonwrit > es: > >I've had -STABLE run fine, but of late have had a lot of trouble with > >

Re: vmware boot problem (xp host, freebsd guest)

Here is a patch that was posted to the list a couple weeks ago, that needs to be applied to make FreeBSD uner vmware work reliably.. In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Robert Watsonwrit es: >I've had -STABLE run fine, but of late have had a lot of trouble with >-current. Userland processes during

Re: vmware on freebsd for fast booting for devel.

At 03:38 PM 4/25/01, Andrew Gallatin wrote: >*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro* > >Sven Huster writes: > > > OT FYI: > > > > Check the ISP1100 from Intel if you like > > support for PIII up to 850 > > 2GB RAM > > 2 x Intel Network onboard (includes pxe

Re: vmware on freebsd for fast booting for devel.

Sven Huster writes: > OT FYI: > > Check the ISP1100 from Intel if you like > support for PIII up to 850 > 2GB RAM > 2 x Intel Network onboard (includes pxe boot, possible on both) > full serial console (even for access to bios setup) Hmm.. We have some Dell PowerEdge 1550s that do this

Re: vmware on freebsd for fast booting for devel.

On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > Vincent Poy writes: > >Speaking about vmware, how much of the performance is a vm > > supposed to give compared to the actual processor in a stand-alone > > machine? > > It depends on what metric one uses to measure performance. Boots > (loadi

Re: vmware on freebsd for fast booting for devel.

> > > I've actually found real hardware to be much faster than vmware in > > > most cases. My dream quick-reboot box has no scsi disks, can skip the > > > memory test, has a serial console & loads its kernels via pxe. > > > > Yeah, where do i buy one? > >Heh. > >Most Dell i810 based Optiplex

Re: vmware on freebsd for fast booting for devel.

Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > So I've got this really elite machinery here to test on, problem is that > booting takes about 2 minutes each time I make a bad kernel, s... > > Anyone using anything like vmware in order to have a rapid reboot/test > cycle for low level FreeBSD kernel coding? Ho

Re: vmware on freebsd for fast booting for devel.

Andrew Gallatin writes: | | Doug Ambrisko writes: | > | | > | Grub doesn't support FreeBSD very well (eg, it can't set the root | > | device, set hints, etc). I think he was hacking grub to add those | > | features, but I don't know how far he got...BTW, grub has no spinner. | > | > Why

Re: vmware on freebsd for fast booting for devel.

Vincent Poy writes: > Speaking about vmware, how much of the performance is a vm > supposed to give compared to the actual processor in a stand-alone > machine? It depends on what metric one uses to measure performance. Boots (loading kernel) with a graphics console are painfully slow,

Re: vmware on freebsd for fast booting for devel.

Doug Ambrisko writes: > | > | Grub doesn't support FreeBSD very well (eg, it can't set the root > | device, set hints, etc). I think he was hacking grub to add those > | features, but I don't know how far he got...BTW, grub has no spinner. > > Why not just use EtherBoot? Simple ignoranc

Re: vmware on freebsd for fast booting for devel.

Andrew Gallatin writes: | | Alfred Perlstein writes: | > So I've got this really elite machinery here to test on, problem is that | > booting takes about 2 minutes each time I make a bad kernel, s... | | Do you mean that vmware boots so slowly that the extra reboot cycle | required to inst

Re: vmware on freebsd for fast booting for devel.

Speaking about vmware, how much of the performance is a vm supposed to give compared to the actual processor in a stand-alone machine? Cheers, Vince - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Vice President __ Unix Networking Operations - FreeBSD-Real Unix for Free / / / / | / |[

Re: vmware on freebsd for fast booting for devel.

Alfred Perlstein writes: > * Andrew Gallatin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010424 14:44] wrote: > > > > Alfred Perlstein writes: > > > So I've got this really elite machinery here to test on, problem is that > > > booting takes about 2 minutes each time I make a bad kernel, s... > > > > Do

Re: vmware on freebsd for fast booting for devel.

* Andrew Gallatin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010424 14:44] wrote: > > Alfred Perlstein writes: > > So I've got this really elite machinery here to test on, problem is that > > booting takes about 2 minutes each time I make a bad kernel, s... > > Do you mean that vmware boots so slowly that the e

Re: vmware on freebsd for fast booting for devel.

Alfred Perlstein writes: > So I've got this really elite machinery here to test on, problem is that > booting takes about 2 minutes each time I make a bad kernel, s... Do you mean that vmware boots so slowly that the extra reboot cycle required to install the next test kernel is painfully

Re: VMware hanging -- Memory deadlock?

Barry Lustig writes: | I have a vaio z505le with 192MB running 4.2-STABLE (cvsupped today). I've | been trying to get vmware running properly on it. I first configured vmware | on the vaio, created a win2k type virtual disk, set ram in the VM to 80M, | and copied a happily working win2k

RE: vmware ...

> im trying to 'install' vmware, and im missing > if_tap.ko, can someone > point me in the right direction? the tap (if_tap.ko) driver is part of -current and RELENG_4. it was not included in 4.1-RC. should you need to use it, please, download sources from -current or RELENG_4 and compile

Re: vmware changes result in nasty bridging mess

On Tue, Aug 08, 2000 at 02:36:02PM +0900, Akinori -Aki- MUSHA wrote: > At a quick glance, "start_bridge" doesn't seem to have chance to be 1, > does it? It's depend. I'm pretty tired that discussian about bridging. So if people want to use bridge let set start_bridge to 1, if not leave it in zer

Re: vmware ...

hi all, im trying to 'install' vmware, and im missing if_tap.ko, can someone point me in the right direction? danny PS: it's FreeBSD 4.1-RELEASE To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Re: vmware changes result in nasty bridging mess

At a quick glance, "start_bridge" doesn't seem to have chance to be 1, does it? And, what's the difference among those three values of "bridge"? > + bridge="_bridge_on" > + bridge="_bridge" > + bridge="_bridge_off" -- /

Re: vmware changes result in nasty bridging mess

Ok, guys. See in the attachment fix, you should apply it to prevent current behavior. On Sun, Aug 06, 2000 at 07:14:59PM -0400, Robert Watson wrote: > On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Vladimir N. Silyaev wrote: > > > >Bridging on by default may > > >have nasty side effects for multi-interface machines (espec

Re: vmware changes result in nasty bridging mess

On Sun, 6 Aug 2000, Robert Watson wrote: > Un-announced, the vmware port enabled bridging between the ethernet > interfaces on my notebook This is bad - ethernet segments should not be bridged without explicit user confirmation, because they are commonly separated precisely for security reasons.

Re: vmware changes result in nasty bridging mess

On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Vladimir N. Silyaev wrote: > >Bridging on by default may > >have nasty side effects for multi-interface machines (especially security > >side effects). > It's several ways to work around about that: > - compile kernel without bridging support. > - remove bridge starting code

Re: vmware changes result in nasty bridging mess

In muc.lists.freebsd.hackers, you wrote: > >bridge_in-- reading table >bridge_in-- reading table >bridge_in-- reading table >bridge_in-- reading table >bridge_in-- reading table >bridge_in-- reading table >bridge_in-- reading table >bridge_in-- reading table >bridge_in-- reading table >... > >The

RE: vmware changes result in nasty bridging mess

On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Reinier Bezuidenhout wrote: > I'm using vmware2 in a different way ... I do not have bridging enabled > in the kernel. I'm using the host method although I do not have > a "legal" subnet on the other side. That was the configuration I was using also, until I upgraded my vers

RE: vmware changes result in nasty bridging mess

I'm using vmware2 in a different way ... I do not have bridging enabled in the kernel. I'm using the host method although I do not have a "legal" subnet on the other side. I've ment to contact the port maintainer so he can add this to the Hints.FreeBSD file. I've configured 10.1.1.1 for the vmn

Re: VMWare: porting kernel modules to FreeBSD

It seems Gary Jennejohn wrote: > Mark Huizer writes: > >Hi there, > > > >I had a look recently at the code for one of the kernel modules that VMWare > >requires (driver-only.tar), and it looks like something that should be > >portable to FreeBSD, although there is some messy stuff in it (assembly >

Re: VMWare: porting kernel modules to FreeBSD

It seems Gary Jennejohn wrote: > Mark Huizer writes: > >Hi there, > > > >I had a look recently at the code for one of the kernel modules that VMWare > >requires (driver-only.tar), and it looks like something that should be > >portable to FreeBSD, although there is some messy stuff in it (assembly

Re: VMWare: porting kernel modules to FreeBSD

I'd like help too. /Jakob Alvermark On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Gary Jennejohn wrote: > Mark Huizer writes: > >Hi there, > > > >I had a look recently at the code for one of the kernel modules that VMWare > >requires (driver-only.tar), and it looks like something that should be > >portable to FreeBSD,

Re: VMWare: porting kernel modules to FreeBSD

I'd like help too. /Jakob Alvermark On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Gary Jennejohn wrote: > Mark Huizer writes: > >Hi there, > > > >I had a look recently at the code for one of the kernel modules that VMWare > >requires (driver-only.tar), and it looks like something that should be > >portable to FreeBSD,

Re: VMWare: porting kernel modules to FreeBSD

Mark Huizer writes: >Hi there, > >I had a look recently at the code for one of the kernel modules that VMWare >requires (driver-only.tar), and it looks like something that should be >portable to FreeBSD, although there is some messy stuff in it (assembly >that seems to be using Linux specific stuff

Re: VMWare: porting kernel modules to FreeBSD

Mark Huizer writes: >Hi there, > >I had a look recently at the code for one of the kernel modules that VMWare >requires (driver-only.tar), and it looks like something that should be >portable to FreeBSD, although there is some messy stuff in it (assembly >that seems to be using Linux specific stuf

Re: VMWare: porting kernel modules to FreeBSD

On Wed, Aug 18, 1999 at 09:16:29AM -0500, Chris Dillon wrote: > On Wed, 18 Aug 1999, Mark Huizer wrote: > > > Hi there, > > > > I had a look recently at the code for one of the kernel modules that VMWare > > requires (driver-only.tar), and it looks like something that should be > > portable to Fr

Re: VMWare: porting kernel modules to FreeBSD

On Wed, Aug 18, 1999 at 08:10:28AM -0600, Darren WIebe wrote: > Hello: > > One other thing that you might be interested in is the fact that Freemware > has its first release out. ***It is not nearly complete yet*** They have > something out though, and it needs people to work on the code for

Re: VMWare: porting kernel modules to FreeBSD

On Wed, Aug 18, 1999 at 09:16:29AM -0500, Chris Dillon wrote: > On Wed, 18 Aug 1999, Mark Huizer wrote: > > > Hi there, > > > > I had a look recently at the code for one of the kernel modules that VMWare > > requires (driver-only.tar), and it looks like something that should be > > portable to F

Re: VMWare: porting kernel modules to FreeBSD

On Wed, Aug 18, 1999 at 08:10:28AM -0600, Darren WIebe wrote: > Hello: > > One other thing that you might be interested in is the fact that Freemware > has its first release out. ***It is not nearly complete yet*** They have > something out though, and it needs people to work on the code fo

Re: VMWare: porting kernel modules to FreeBSD

On Wed, 18 Aug 1999, Mark Huizer wrote: > Hi there, > > I had a look recently at the code for one of the kernel modules that VMWare > requires (driver-only.tar), and it looks like something that should be > portable to FreeBSD, although there is some messy stuff in it (assembly > that seems to be

Re: VMWare: porting kernel modules to FreeBSD

Hello: One other thing that you might be interested in is the fact that Freemware has its first release out. ***It is not nearly complete yet*** They have something out though, and it needs people to work on the code for FreeBSD. Right now they are working mostly on the Linux stuff where it

Re: VMWare: porting kernel modules to FreeBSD

On Wed, 18 Aug 1999, Mark Huizer wrote: > Hi there, > > I had a look recently at the code for one of the kernel modules that VMWare > requires (driver-only.tar), and it looks like something that should be > portable to FreeBSD, although there is some messy stuff in it (assembly > that seems to b

Re: VMWare: porting kernel modules to FreeBSD

Hello: One other thing that you might be interested in is the fact that Freemware has its first release out. ***It is not nearly complete yet*** They have something out though, and it needs people to work on the code for FreeBSD. Right now they are working mostly on the Linux stuff where it

Re: VMWare plug/quickie tests.

On Tue, 27 Jul 1999, Kip Macy wrote: > Is there anyone in particular to whom we should write at VMWare? > I agree with his sentiments. I picked a likely looking name from the "contact us" page. Make sure that you only write if you are willing to pay for the product if they make it, and t

  1   2   >