FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Ubuntu > Ubuntu User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-17-2011, 12:18 AM
Patton Echols
 
Default Virtualization without extensions?

The ubuntu server guide section on virtualization has this comment at
the beginning:


"Before getting started with *libvirt* it is best to make sure your
hardware supports the necessary virtualization extensions for *KVM*."


My server does not. What the guide does not say is how well or if
virtualization will work without hardware extensions. Does anyone have
any experience with this?


The server in question runs my backups and intranet wiki. I suppose I
could "just try it," but I'd really prefer to not break it or do
something difficult / time consuming to uninstall. Thanks for any thoughts.


--PE

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 03-17-2011, 12:35 AM
Kent Borg
 
Default Virtualization without extensions?

Patton Echols wrote:
My server does not. What the guide does not say is how well or if
virtualization will work without hardware extensions. Does anyone have
any experience with this?


Without kvm support you would run plain qemu (the basis for kvm) as your
emulator with kqemu as a kernel module that makes x86 instructions run
directly on your x86 (most of the time) and not have to be emulated.


In have not tried qemu on recent versions of Ubuntu, but I have used it
on earlier versions. It works.



-kb


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 03-17-2011, 02:57 PM
Patton Echols
 
Default Virtualization without extensions?

On 03/16/2011 06:35 PM, Kent Borg wrote:

Patton Echols wrote:
My server does not. What the guide does not say is how well or if
virtualization will work without hardware extensions. Does anyone
have any experience with this?


Without kvm support you would run plain qemu (the basis for kvm) as
your emulator with kqemu as a kernel module that makes x86
instructions run directly on your x86 (most of the time) and not have
to be emulated.


In have not tried qemu on recent versions of Ubuntu, but I have used
it on earlier versions. It works.




Thanks. Given another keyword, I was able to find this page:
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Kqemu

My server is still running 9.10, so it looks like I could build rebuild
qemu from source and enable kqemu, but that defeats my purpose. There
is a comment at the top of that page that suggests that qemu would run
without either kvm or kqemu -- just that it would run poorly. Since I
am just interested in testing some web apps, poor performance might not
be much of an issue. Any thought on that?


I suppose my other alternative would be to do my testing in a VM under
VirtualBox on my desktop.


--PE


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 03-17-2011, 03:12 PM
Kent Borg
 
Default Virtualization without extensions?

Patton Echols wrote:
My server is still running 9.10, so it looks like I could build
rebuild qemu from source and enable kqemu, but that defeats my purpose.


I don't understand the details there, but it reminds me of an advantage
of compiling your own qemu: it is possible to have more than one version
on your computer at the same time. So one can test a new version without
disturbing existing VMs. One can migrate VMs one at a time. (Simple
shutdown-restart migration in this case, no fancy live-migration.)


There is a comment at the top of that page that suggests that qemu
would run without either kvm or kqemu -- just that it would run
poorly. Since I am just interested in testing some web apps, poor
performance might not be much of an issue. Any thought on that?


I think performance is orders of magnitude slower to emulate
instructions one-by-one without kqemu. Qemu is impressive in that mode
(typical Android development is to run Arm code emulated in an x86
qemu...it does work...eventually), but there are limits, it is not fast.


I suppose my other alternative would be to do my testing in a VM under
VirtualBox on my desktop.


You get the equivalent of kqemu with Virtualbox. (Also as a module, like
kqemu.)



-kb


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 03-17-2011, 07:23 PM
Patton Echols
 
Default Virtualization without extensions?

On 03/17/2011 09:12 AM, Kent Borg wrote:

Patton Echols wrote:
My server is still running 9.10, so it looks like I could build
rebuild qemu from source and enable kqemu, but that defeats my purpose.


I don't understand the details there, but it reminds me of an
advantage of compiling your own qemu: it is possible to have more than
one version on your computer at the same time. So one can test a new
version without disturbing existing VMs. One can migrate VMs one at a
time. (Simple shutdown-restart migration in this case, no fancy
live-migration.)


There is a comment at the top of that page that suggests that qemu
would run without either kvm or kqemu -- just that it would run
poorly. Since I am just interested in testing some web apps, poor
performance might not be much of an issue. Any thought on that?


I think performance is orders of magnitude slower to emulate
instructions one-by-one without kqemu. Qemu is impressive in that mode
(typical Android development is to run Arm code emulated in an x86
qemu...it does work...eventually), but there are limits, it is not fast.




Interesting stuff . Thanks for the lesson!

I suppose my other alternative would be to do my testing in a VM
under VirtualBox on my desktop.


You get the equivalent of kqemu with Virtualbox. (Also as a module,
like kqemu.)




Yes, but I have to run it on a machine with a GUI, precluding the
server. I'd wanted to use the server because I can allocate more
resources to the VM with no realistic impact on performance. But given
what I need to do, the desktop machine will work ok.


Thanks again for helping me puzzle through this.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 03-17-2011, 07:46 PM
Tom H
 
Default Virtualization without extensions?

On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Patton Echols <p.echols@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 03/17/2011 09:12 AM, Kent Borg wrote:
>> Patton Echols wrote:
>>>
>>> I suppose my other alternative would be to do my testing in a VM under
>>> VirtualBox on my desktop.
>>
>> You get the equivalent of kqemu with Virtualbox. (Also as a module, like
>> kqemu.)
>
> Yes, but I have to run it on a machine with a GUI, precluding the server.

You can run VBox on a headless, X-less box with VBoxHeadless and VBoxManage.

http://www.virtualbox.org/manual/ch07.html#vboxheadless
http://www.virtualbox.org/manual/ch08.html

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 03-17-2011, 10:45 PM
Patton Echols
 
Default Virtualization without extensions?

On 03/17/2011 01:46 PM, Tom H wrote:

On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Patton Echols<p.echols@comcast.net> wrote:

On 03/17/2011 09:12 AM, Kent Borg wrote:

Patton Echols wrote:

I suppose my other alternative would be to do my testing in a VM under
VirtualBox on my desktop.

You get the equivalent of kqemu with Virtualbox. (Also as a module, like
kqemu.)

Yes, but I have to run it on a machine with a GUI, precluding the server.

You can run VBox on a headless, X-less box with VBoxHeadless and VBoxManage.

http://www.virtualbox.org/manual/ch07.html#vboxheadless
http://www.virtualbox.org/manual/ch08.html


Ah Ha! Looks like just the thing. Thanks.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:37 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org