I am currently running F7 with HVMs. I am considering trying out F8 or F9 to see if I can get them to work as well. I know F9 doesn't have a Dom0, at least not yet. I also understand that DomUs are supposed to work on it. However, I don't believe I have seen any discussion as to how that is done and/or whether or not HVM DomUs are supported in that environment. I am assuming that since the decision that F9 wouldn't include Dom0 support was relatively recent that I probably don't need to search the list archives. Can anyone tell me whether or not HVM DomUs work in F9 and whether or not there is any additional performance degradation vs running them in a Dom0? I actually prefer to run HVM DomUs in a regular kernel if possible because I have always had mouse problems in Dom0 of F7, but not in the base kernel. I understand that KVM is an option, but since Xen now supports Windows with ACPI (without the degradation that was once common in Xen and is still common in KVM because of a certain ACPI register apparently regularly polled by Windows [I would love to know what register, as I could then try to find a way to prevent Windows from doing that and KVM might perform as well as Xen]), I feel that KVM would be a big step backwards. Additionally, there are apparently more paravirtual drivers available for Windows (though they are not readily available in binary form and stable, more on that in my next message), though using std-vga in KVM is nice (with standard VESA 2.0, a generic Windows driver already exists outside of the project). Finally, assuming that HVM DomUs can be run in F9, do the old services and xm commands still exist, or will I have to learn to use virsh and make xml configs? Thanks, Dustin
Dustin Henning wrote:
I actually prefer to run HVM DomUs in a regular kernel if possiblebecause I have always had mouse problems in Dom0 of F7, but not in the base kernel. I understand that KVM is an option, but since Xen now supports Windows with ACPI (without the degradation that was once common in Xen and is still common in KVM because of a certain ACPI register apparently regularly polled by Windows [I would love to know what register, as I could
It's called that Task Priority Register, or TPR.
then try to find a way to prevent Windows from doing that and KVM might perform as well as Xen]), I feel that KVM would be a big step backwards.
For uniprocessor guests, kvm supports TPR optimization (since December 2007). It's disabled on SMP guests due to stability issues, unfortunately.
Additionally, there are apparently more paravirtual drivers available for Windows (though they are not readily available in binary form and stable, more on that in my next message), though using std-vga in KVM is nice (with standard VESA 2.0, a generic Windows driver already exists outside of the project).
A paravirtualized network driver is freely available for kvm. It is still not fully stable under heavy loads, though. We expect to fix this soon.
Great information, and straight from the source! Can you tell me on which version of KVM support for TPR was implemented? I assume I am not up to said version, but I want to confirm, because when I start my Windows guests (currently all uniprocessor) in KVM, csrss.exe uses all available processor constantly until I follow the KVM Windows ACPI workaround directions. I have updated since December, but I am running Fedora 7 rpms, so I may have to move up a version or two to get that support. Thanks, Dustin
-----Original Message----- From: Avi Kivity [mailto:avi@qumranet.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 11:55 To: Dustin.Henning@prd-inc.com Cc: fedora-xen@redhat.com Subject: Re: [Fedora-xen] HVM DomU on F9?
Dustin Henning wrote:
I actually prefer to run HVM DomUs in a regular kernel if possiblebecause I have always had mouse problems in Dom0 of F7, but not in the
base
kernel. I understand that KVM is an option, but since Xen now supports Windows with ACPI (without the degradation that was once common in Xen and is still common in KVM because of a certain ACPI register apparently regularly polled by Windows [I would love to know what register, as I
could
It's called that Task Priority Register, or TPR.
then try to find a way to prevent Windows from doing that and KVM might perform as well as Xen]), I feel that KVM would be a big step backwards.
For uniprocessor guests, kvm supports TPR optimization (since December 2007). It's disabled on SMP guests due to stability issues, unfortunately.
Additionally, there are apparently more paravirtual drivers available for Windows (though they are not readily available in binary form and stable, more on that in my next message), though using std-vga in KVM is nice
(with
standard VESA 2.0, a generic Windows driver already exists outside of the project).
A paravirtualized network driver is freely available for kvm. It is still not fully stable under heavy loads, though. We expect to fix this soon.
Dustin Henning wrote:
Great information, and straight from the source! Can you tell me on which version of KVM support for TPR was implemented?
kvm-58 (see http://kvm.qumranet.com/kvmwiki/ChangeLog). F7's rpms were stuck on kvm-36 IIRC.
Hi Dustin, I guest you to use F8 and Xen.
Emre
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 6:07 PM, Avi Kivity avi@qumranet.com wrote:
Dustin Henning wrote:
Great information, and straight from the source! Can you tell meon which version of KVM support for TPR was implemented?
kvm-58 (see http://kvm.qumranet.com/kvmwiki/ChangeLog). F7's rpms were stuck on kvm-36 IIRC.
-- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
-- Fedora-xen mailing list Fedora-xen@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-xen
Forgot to say, F8 also has good KVM support, so you can try that also...
Emre
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Emre ERENOGLU erenoglu@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Dustin, I guest you to use F8 and Xen.
Emre
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 6:07 PM, Avi Kivity avi@qumranet.com wrote:
Dustin Henning wrote:
Great information, and straight from the source! Can you tell meon which version of KVM support for TPR was implemented?
kvm-58 (see http://kvm.qumranet.com/kvmwiki/ChangeLog). F7's rpms were stuck on kvm-36 IIRC.
-- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
-- Fedora-xen mailing list Fedora-xen@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-xen
-- Emre Erenoglu erenoglu@gmail.com
That is probably what I will do, but Fedora has a short lifecycle, so I thought 9 would be OK if it worked. I am also considering CentOS 5.1, but CentOS 5.0 didnt work on my hardware, so I dont know that Ill have any luck there. Any reason that would cause me grief (short of there not being a CentOS-Xen mailing list)? Thanks, Dustin
From: Emre ERENOGLU [mailto:erenoglu@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 12:38 To: Avi Kivity Cc: Dustin.Henning@prd-inc.com; fedora-xen@redhat.com Subject: Re: [Fedora-xen] HVM DomU on F9?
Hi Dustin, I guest you to use F8 and Xen.
Emre On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 6:07 PM, Avi Kivity avi@qumranet.com wrote: Dustin Henning wrote: Great information, and straight from the source! Can you tell me on which version of KVM support for TPR was implemented?
kvm-58 (see http://kvm.qumranet.com/kvmwiki/ChangeLog). F7's rpms were stuck on kvm-36 IIRC.
-
Avi Kivity -
Dustin Henning -
Emre Erenoglu