On Jan 16, 2008 4:05 AM, Mulyadi Santosa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi...
>
> On Jan 16, 2008 4:34 AM, Jeremy C. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Any way to startup qemu with my own desired speed?
> Check http://www.miroslavnovak.com/qemu-brake_en.php
This can't be used to set the emulated p
Hi all,
This patch against current CVS adds VNC reverse connections, where the server
connects actively to a waiting client, as in "-vnc rev:5500" or "-vnc
rev:read.cs.ucla.edu:5500". This is quite useful if the user expects to run
QEMU many times in succession (for example, is debugging a to
Hi...
On Jan 16, 2008 4:34 AM, Jeremy C. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any way to startup qemu with my own desired speed?
Check http://www.miroslavnovak.com/qemu-brake_en.php
regards,
Mulyadi.
Le mardi 15 janvier 2008 à 23:54 +, Daniel P. Berrange a écrit :
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 12:40:06AM +0100, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> > Le mardi 15 janvier 2008 à 18:27 +, Daniel P. Berrange a écrit :
> > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 07:22:53PM +0100, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> > > > As it should
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 12:40:06AM +0100, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> Le mardi 15 janvier 2008 à 18:27 +, Daniel P. Berrange a écrit :
> > On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 07:22:53PM +0100, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> > > As it should be useful to be able to mount partition from a
> > > disk image, (and as I n
Le mardi 15 janvier 2008 à 18:27 +, Daniel P. Berrange a écrit :
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 07:22:53PM +0100, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> > As it should be useful to be able to mount partition from a
> > disk image, (and as I need a break in my bug hunting) I've
> > modified the loop driver to mou
On Jan 15, 2008 10:34 PM, Jeremy C. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any way to startup qemu with my own desired speed?
You can't as qemu emulated target speed is not constant.
qemu generates code on-the-fly and uses optimizations
that result in big variations.
Add to that there's no cycle accur
Any way to startup qemu with my own desired speed?
It does not have to be precise. And I don't want to slow down the host
system itself.
For example, I am using a 1900MHz system and need to test some
applications usability and performance as if it were running on a 233 MHz
CPU (or close).
Boc
Am 15.01.2008 um 18:50 schrieb Alexander Graf:
On Jan 15, 2008, at 6:30 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
Am 15.01.2008 um 17:32 schrieb Alexander Graf:
Jamie Lokier wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote:
I believe the 5% performance hit
that goes with them is no real problem, as most people should be
On Jan 15, 2008, at 7:23 PM, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote:
[snip]
I was saying "let's finally make qemu gcc4-save, so we can drop this
gcc3 dependency. The only platform that might get a performance hit
from
that is i386 and I was trying to show why a small performance hit
on
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 07:22:53PM +0100, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> As it should be useful to be able to mount partition from a
> disk image, (and as I need a break in my bug hunting) I've
> modified the loop driver to mount raw disk image.
>
> To not break original loop device, as we have to chan
Alexander Graf wrote:
[snip]
> I was saying "let's finally make qemu gcc4-save, so we can drop this
> gcc3 dependency. The only platform that might get a performance hit from
> that is i386 and I was trying to show why a small performance hit on i386
> is no real problem if we can use gcc4 for
As it should be useful to be able to mount partition from a disk image, (and as
I need a break in my bug hunting) I've modified the loop driver to mount raw
disk image.
To not break original loop device, as we have to change minor numbers to manage
partitions, a new parameter is added to the mo
Alexander Graf wrote:
> Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > Alexander Graf wrote:
> >> I believe the 5% performance hit
> >> that goes with them is no real problem, as most people should be using
> >> x86_64 nowadays anyway.
> >
> > *Boggle*! x86_64 is only a few years old, and cheap low-power x86_64
> >
On Jan 15, 2008, at 6:50 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008, at 6:30 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
Am 15.01.2008 um 17:32 schrieb Alexander Graf:
Jamie Lokier wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote:
I believe the 5% performance hit
that goes with them is no real problem, as most people should
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Andrzej Zaborowski wrote:
CVSROOT:/sources/qemu
Module name:qemu
Changes by: Andrzej Zaborowski08/01/14 22:09:12
Modified files:
. : Makefile.target configure qemu-doc.texi
Added files:
hw : gus.c gusemu.h gus
On Jan 15, 2008, at 6:30 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
Am 15.01.2008 um 17:32 schrieb Alexander Graf:
Jamie Lokier wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote:
I believe the 5% performance hit
that goes with them is no real problem, as most people should be
using
x86_64 nowadays anyway.
*Boggle*! x86_
Am 15.01.2008 um 17:32 schrieb Alexander Graf:
Jamie Lokier wrote:
Alexander Graf wrote:
I believe the 5% performance hit
that goes with them is no real problem, as most people should be
using
x86_64 nowadays anyway.
*Boggle*! x86_64 is only a few years old, and cheap low-power x86_64
Hi,
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Alexander Graf wrote:
> Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > Alexander Graf wrote:
> >
> >> I believe the 5% performance hit that goes with them is no real
> >> problem, as most people should be using x86_64 nowadays anyway.
> >
> > *Boggle*! x86_64 is only a few years old, and c
Applied on stable branch.
2008/1/13, Andrzej Zaborowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> CVSROOT:/sources/qemu
> Module name:qemu
> Changes by: Andrzej Zaborowski 08/01/14 02:56:53
>
> Modified files:
> . : qemu-doc.texi vl.c
>
> Log message:
> Change -drive
Applied on stable branch.
2008/1/14, Andrzej Zaborowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> CVSROOT:/sources/qemu
> Module name:qemu
> Changes by: Andrzej Zaborowski 08/01/14 03:48:37
>
> Modified files:
> . : block-vmdk.c
>
> Log message:
> Add a path length c
Applied on stable branch.
2008/1/13, Andrzej Zaborowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> CVSROOT:/sources/qemu
> Module name:qemu
> Changes by: Andrzej Zaborowski 08/01/14 01:52:52
>
> Modified files:
> hw : vmware_vga.c
>
> Log message:
> Register io ports a
Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>> I believe the 5% performance hit
>> that goes with them is no real problem, as most people should be using
>> x86_64 nowadays anyway.
>>
>
> *Boggle*! x86_64 is only a few years old, and cheap low-power x86_64
> laptops are relatively re
Alexander Graf wrote:
> I believe the 5% performance hit
> that goes with them is no real problem, as most people should be using
> x86_64 nowadays anyway.
*Boggle*! x86_64 is only a few years old, and cheap low-power x86_64
laptops are relatively recent.
-- Jamie
Hi,
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Anders Melchiorsen wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I haven't looked that deeply myself, but your explanations do not give
>> me a cozy feeling about your patch.
>
> I see your point, and I would love to discuss the merits of the patch
> (wh
25 matches
Mail list logo
