[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Is this like it is implemented now?
Yup. In both the AIO and non-AIO case, there is a separate thread to which
you send IO requests, and at some later point, UML gets interrupted with
the results.
Jeff
Hey gang, The list has been fairly quiet lately, so I thought I would
pose a question. Let's hear what you use UML for. What are you doing
with it?
I'm running on a Sempron 2200 with LVM and software RAID on my host
system. I have 5 guests up and running.
Apache web server listening on the i
On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 16:09:28 -0800, Scott Granados <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi, again I hope this is not to basic.
>
> I have a uml built, with out devfs enabled per the default.
>
> I'm interested in making other fie systems so according to the steps I built
> an empty file
> d
Hi, again I hope this is not to
basic.
I have a uml built, with out devfs enabled per the
default.
I'm interested in making other fie systems so
according to the steps I built an empty file
dd if=/dev/zero of=newfilesys seek=256 count=1
bs=1M
which created the proper file
then in th
has anybody compared the performance of UML's built-in blockdevice,
NetworkBlockDevices, ATAoverEthernet, yet?
I don't know how UML's blockdevice works, but i know how NBD works. The
kernel sends multiple requests to the NBD server, and receives the
responses asap. The worse case for UML's block-de
On Friday 04 March 2005 07:05, Oliver Baltz wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> > Have you tried attaching it to the host console thingy, or running UML
> > under
> > gdb and breaking in to see what it's doing when it hangs? (Also, if you
> > can
> > get it to respond to the magic sysrq, you can get a thread dum
On Friday 04 March 2005 04:01, Sven Köhler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> has anybody compared the performance of UML's built-in blockdevice,
> NetworkBlockDevices, ATAoverEthernet, yet?
>
> I don't know how UML's blockdevice works, but i know how NBD works. The
> kernel sends multiple requests to the NBD server
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 21:35, Jim Carter wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Maarten wrote:
> Am I correct that hostfs is not intrinsically unsafe? But if your host
> keys or other sensitive data are mode 644 so the UML special user can read
> them, the hacker can steal them, just as could any other
On Thursday 03 March 2005 02:17, nils toedtmann wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:35:23PM -0800, Jim Carter wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Maarten wrote:
> > > Out of curiosity, is a 'default' SKAS-enabled guest (and without the
> > > host-fs kernel option) safe enough as a sandbox to let untrust
I had a similar problem, and it turned out it was a problem with the DEV file
system. By compiling the old DEV_FS file system into the kernel (CONFIG_DEV_FS)
the problem vanished!
Halldor
-Original Message-
From: Scott Granados [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 3/4/2005 9:14 PM
T
10 matches
Mail list logo
