Re: [News] Linux's Built-in Virtualisation May Already Have Big Lead - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: [News] Linux's Built-in Virtualisation May Already Have Big Lead - Linux ; On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:52:17 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote: > Paravirtualization Dead? I Didn't Know It Was Sick > > ,----[ Quote ] >| Companies that use the paravirtualization method, such as XenSource, may need >| to alter their ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Re: [News] Linux's Built-in Virtualisation May Already Have Big Lead

  1. Re: [News] Linux's Built-in Virtualisation May Already Have Big Lead

    On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:52:17 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    > Paravirtualization Dead? I Didn't Know It Was Sick
    >
    > ,----[ Quote ]
    >| Companies that use the paravirtualization method, such as XenSource, may need
    >| to alter their code significantly to adjust for the obsolescence of MMU PV.
    >| KVM, which is currently a part of the mainline Linux kernel, uses a different
    >| technique (full virtualization) and isn't affected.
    >|
    >| Kivity told me that KVM can easily be configured to use or ignore
    >| hardware-based MMU, depending EPT/NPT availability on the installed platform.
    >|
    >| So, statement explained. Head swimming, I'll try to focus on other, less
    >| complicated things now. Like world peace.
    > `----
    >
    > http://blog.linuxtoday.com/blog/2008...rtualizat.html


    Lol, you gotta love it. This guy has no idea what he's talking about, and
    admits it. However, even after his talk with the developer, he still gets
    it wrong.

    "One of the big advantages of PV is that it lets "guest OS drivers reduce
    the proportion of hardware resources that the VMM must emulate in software,
    reducing overhead in a manner that can boost performance dramatically,"
    according to an article on the Intel Software Network."

    "In other words, PV does a lot of work in software so the hardware won't
    have to."

    No, that's not "in other words". "in other words", PV does a lot of work
    in *HARDWARE* so that the software won't have to. Exactly the reverse of
    what this guy took away from his conversation.

    However, it's not really accurate either, since EPT and NPT (the
    technologies he's discussing) are part of the MMU, so it's still MMU PV.

  2. Re: [News] Linux's Built-in Virtualisation May Already Have Big Lead


    "Erik Funkenbusch" wrote in message
    news:1jmjko0v5atky.dlg@funkenbusch.com...
    > On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:52:17 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >
    >> Paravirtualization Dead? I Didn't Know It Was Sick
    >>
    >> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>| Companies that use the paravirtualization method, such as XenSource, may
    >>need
    >>| to alter their code significantly to adjust for the obsolescence of MMU
    >>PV.
    >>| KVM, which is currently a part of the mainline Linux kernel, uses a
    >>different
    >>| technique (full virtualization) and isn't affected.
    >>|
    >>| Kivity told me that KVM can easily be configured to use or ignore
    >>| hardware-based MMU, depending EPT/NPT availability on the installed
    >>platform.
    >>|
    >>| So, statement explained. Head swimming, I'll try to focus on other, less
    >>| complicated things now. Like world peace.
    >> `----
    >>
    >> http://blog.linuxtoday.com/blog/2008...rtualizat.html

    >
    > Lol, you gotta love it. This guy has no idea what he's talking about, and
    > admits it. However, even after his talk with the developer, he still gets
    > it wrong.
    >
    > "One of the big advantages of PV is that it lets "guest OS drivers reduce
    > the proportion of hardware resources that the VMM must emulate in
    > software,
    > reducing overhead in a manner that can boost performance dramatically,"
    > according to an article on the Intel Software Network."
    >
    > "In other words, PV does a lot of work in software so the hardware won't
    > have to."
    >
    > No, that's not "in other words". "in other words", PV does a lot of work
    > in *HARDWARE* so that the software won't have to. Exactly the reverse of
    > what this guy took away from his conversation.
    >
    > However, it's not really accurate either, since EPT and NPT (the
    > technologies he's discussing) are part of the MMU, so it's still MMU PV.



    The guy who wrote the article is clearly confused. And Roy Schestowitz who
    copied the article as some "big news for Linux" is even dumber so how could
    he possibly know. Remember that Roy Schestowitz is too stupid to know the
    difference between a computer BIOS error (missing keyboard) and a Windows
    Vista error.



    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  3. Re: [News] Linux's Built-in Virtualisation May Already Have Big Lead

    On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:46:27 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

    > "Erik Funkenbusch" wrote in message
    > news:1jmjko0v5atky.dlg@funkenbusch.com...
    >> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:52:17 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>
    >>> Paravirtualization Dead? I Didn't Know It Was Sick
    >>>
    >>> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>>| Companies that use the paravirtualization method, such as XenSource, may
    >>>need
    >>>| to alter their code significantly to adjust for the obsolescence of MMU
    >>>PV.
    >>>| KVM, which is currently a part of the mainline Linux kernel, uses a
    >>>different
    >>>| technique (full virtualization) and isn't affected.
    >>>|
    >>>| Kivity told me that KVM can easily be configured to use or ignore
    >>>| hardware-based MMU, depending EPT/NPT availability on the installed
    >>>platform.
    >>>|
    >>>| So, statement explained. Head swimming, I'll try to focus on other, less
    >>>| complicated things now. Like world peace.
    >>> `----
    >>>
    >>> http://blog.linuxtoday.com/blog/2008...rtualizat.html

    >>
    >> Lol, you gotta love it. This guy has no idea what he's talking about, and
    >> admits it. However, even after his talk with the developer, he still gets
    >> it wrong.
    >>
    >> "One of the big advantages of PV is that it lets "guest OS drivers reduce
    >> the proportion of hardware resources that the VMM must emulate in
    >> software,
    >> reducing overhead in a manner that can boost performance dramatically,"
    >> according to an article on the Intel Software Network."
    >>
    >> "In other words, PV does a lot of work in software so the hardware won't
    >> have to."
    >>
    >> No, that's not "in other words". "in other words", PV does a lot of work
    >> in *HARDWARE* so that the software won't have to. Exactly the reverse of
    >> what this guy took away from his conversation.
    >>
    >> However, it's not really accurate either, since EPT and NPT (the
    >> technologies he's discussing) are part of the MMU, so it's still MMU PV.

    >
    >
    > The guy who wrote the article is clearly confused. And Roy Schestowitz who
    > copied the article as some "big news for Linux" is even dumber so how could
    > he possibly know. Remember that Roy Schestowitz is too stupid to know the
    > difference between a computer BIOS error (missing keyboard) and a Windows
    > Vista error.


    Considering Roy's major in college, he really seems quite inept at
    technical things.
    I suspect he coasted on the tails of other more talented students.


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

+ Reply to Thread