Den 26. sep. 2015 14:00, skrev J. Roeleveld: > >> Depending on your hardware you will want to use hvm or pvm for >> efficiency. (VT-x means hvm is more efficient). > What do you base this on? > Without VT-x, HVM doesn't even work, which means PV is only option. I stand corrected :/ .
I'l refrain from confusing the issue further, I believe I was thinking VT-d. This <http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_Project_Software_Overview#Guest_Types> is the right place to learn about guest types :). Some of the alphabet-soup is explained here <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_virtualization> The rule of thumb I live by for my private, ad-hoc systems is: since I have hardware support for virtualization and also VT-d, I use it, and I keep references handy while i configure things :-D. > With VT-x, PV still has higher performance as the drivers inside the guest > talk directly to the host. > PV on HVM will be best of both worlds, and drivers are available at least for windows and linux, so I was taking pv drivers as a given. Also, where I said VT-x read VT-d. >> If running hvm on >> quemu-xen-traditional, you HAVE to use a bootloader inside the VM, or >> some kind of netboot/pvgrub thing. If running upstream quemu for a hvm, >> you can choose. I find it less of a hassle to use bootloader inside the >> VM. > It's simple, if you don't have full access to the host. > If you have full access, it's actually simpler as you don't have to worry > about boot-order, partitioning and a bootloader. I'm sure you are right, it is just pvgrub is an extra piece of kit I haven't bothered learning. I'll go back to lurking now :-~
