[mythtv-users] Virtualisation in the home network – ready for mainstream?
greg pryzby
greg at pryzby.org
Thu Sep 3 00:08:57 UTC 2009
Jarod Wilson wrote:
> On Sep 2, 2009, at 6:18 PM, greg pryzby <greg at pryzby.org> wrote:
>
>> Greg Woods wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 12:13 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
>>>> lsmod |grep kvm
>>> On the work system where things are good, the output is:
>>> kvm_intel 39696 3 kvm 128388 1
>>> kvm_intel
>>> When I get home tonight, I'll check the Pentium 4 machine. Am I correct
>>> in assuming that if the machine isn't already using KVM, there's no way
>>> to make it do so because the hardware support it needs is lacking? If
>>
>> The machine needs to have the hardware assist virt bits on the chip.
>> Check BIOS. AFTER changing in BIOS, you need to turn off the machine
>> (I pull the plug to be sure) and turn it back on. A 'soft restart'
>> doesn't get the BIOS change for virt I have learned, the hard way.
>
> This isn't universally true, but not bad advice just to be sure. (Lenovo
> systems definitely don't properly set the hw virt enable bits w/o a cold
> boot).
Must be some of the older intel stuff I have access to also, because I
spent way too long saying, SET in BIOS, doesn't see it? yep, set in
BIOS, etc :/
>> MOST machines that are server quality and less than 3 years old, have
>> the bits. For desktops or older, it is hit or miss.
>
> Its pretty much "hit" even with almost all recent desktops and laptops
> I've seen, save those with atom procs. I have around ten machines
> between home and the office w/hw virt extensions, only two of which are
> server-class.
Yep. I didn't want to get into the atom and other 'power saving' cpus.
If I said, < 3 years old you are probably good, I would have heard about
it ;)
>> IIRC you MUST be 64bit also. You can run a 32bit guest, but 64bit host
>> is needed. I maybe mis-remembering though.
>
> You're mis-remembering. The 32-bit Intel Core line are hw virt capable.
Must just be my day job things then. I know we only support 64bit I
couldn't recall if it was hardware or us that was making the decision.
>>> so, will VirtualBox still be usable on such a machine?
>>
>> that could work. performance might not be as good.
>
> It'll be better than running qemu w/o kvm support.
running the native machine is better than qemu ;) But that isn't the
point on qemu, is it :P
--
greg pryzby greg at pryzby dot org
http://www.linkedin.com/in/gpryzby
BLOG: http://restonartistree.blogspot.com/
WEB: http://www.RestonArtisTree.com/
TWTR: gpryzby
More information about the mythtv-users
mailing list