David McGuffey wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-11-07 at 23:32 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> David McGuffey wrote:
>>> I tried VMWare's EXSi 4.0 on bare metal, and failed. Then I tried
>>> VirtualBox on CentOS 5.3 and failed.
>>
>> What did these fail to do?
>>
> Sorry it has taken so long to get back.
>
>
On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 10:18 +0100, Mathieu Baudier wrote:
> > I selected one virtual CPU for the XP load...primarily because I want to
> > run a couple more VMs and the guidance was to allocate one real CPU per
> > VM.
>
> My understanding is that Win XP will perform a fundamentally different
> i
On Sat, 2009-11-07 at 23:32 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> David McGuffey wrote:
> >
> > I tried VMWare's EXSi 4.0 on bare metal, and failed. Then I tried
> > VirtualBox on CentOS 5.3 and failed.
>
>
> What did these fail to do?
>
Sorry it has taken so long to get back.
After screwing around f
> I selected one virtual CPU for the XP load...primarily because I want to
> run a couple more VMs and the guidance was to allocate one real CPU per
> VM.
My understanding is that Win XP will perform a fundamentally different
install depending on whether it detects 1 or many CPU. So if you ever
pl
On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 14:50 +0100, Mathieu Baudier wrote:
> > I've been doing a lot of research on virtualization (VMWare, EXSi, xen,
> > kvm, VirtualBox, etc.) and ended up choosing kvm. I'm very surprised at
> > how quick I was able to bring up a WinXP VM.
> >
>
> # FUTURE OF KVM
> David, I'm
> I've been doing a lot of research on virtualization (VMWare, EXSi, xen,
> kvm, VirtualBox, etc.) and ended up choosing kvm. I'm very surprised at
> how quick I was able to bring up a WinXP VM.
>
# FUTURE OF KVM
David, I'm currently doing exactly the same (researching and comparing
various virtu
David McGuffey wrote:
>
> I tried VMWare's EXSi 4.0 on bare metal, and failed. Then I tried
> VirtualBox on CentOS 5.3 and failed.
What did these fail to do?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http
On Fri, 2009-11-06 at 16:21 -0500, James B. Byrne wrote:
> On Fri, November 6, 2009 13:50, James B. Byrne wrote:
> >
> >
> > Evidently, one gets XEN. I will get kvm from extras and go about
> > installing it manually.
> >
> >
>
> # grep 'vmx' /proc/cpuinfo
>
> flags : fpu vme de pse t
I've been doing a lot of research on virtualization (VMWare, EXSi, xen,
kvm, VirtualBox, etc.) and ended up choosing kvm. I'm very surprised at
how quick I was able to bring up a WinXP VM.
I tried VMWare's EXSi 4.0 on bare metal, and failed. Then I tried
VirtualBox on CentOS 5.3 and failed. So
>
> Well, it turns out that qemu is required and kvm-qemu-img was the
> source of the problem. Removing this and installing qemu instead
> fixed the problem.
>
Actually I did the other way round:
yum remove qemu (which is in the extras repo)
yum install -x qemu kvm (excluding qemu and thus kvm-qe
10 matches
Mail list logo
