On Tuesday 04 October 2005 18:41, Anthony Brock wrote:
> Quoting Blaisorblade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > And I think that distributing usable root_fs images would be of great
> > help...
> > (actually, there are other sources but the site has no link to them -
> > plus I don't like that much cherry-
On Tuesday 04 October 2005 14:38, Antoine Martin wrote:
> > > Hmm, what's that? Faster than skas3 I guess?!
> > > Is this going to work on x86/amd64 guests on amd64 hosts too?
> Thing is, there are no reasons to trust me more than others...
> I'll put sha/md5 sums but I could still have trojaned i
On Monday 03 October 2005 15:46, Chris Lightfoot wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 08:39:46AM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 09:28:04AM +0100, Chris Lightfoot wrote:
> > > At the cost that lots of programs in the guest simply
> > > won't work (strace, make, java, ime). Or has th
Quoting Blaisorblade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
And I think that distributing usable root_fs images would be of great help...
(actually, there are other sources but the site has no link to them - plus I
don't like that much cherry-picking root_fs's from people I don't trust and
putting UML's approval
> > Hmm, what's that? Faster than skas3 I guess?!
> > Is this going to work on x86/amd64 guests on amd64 hosts too?
> No, SKAS4 would be as fast as SKAS3, but could be merged in mainline...
Nice, no more patching!
> And amd64 hosts would be fixed as well.
>
> Also, I've heard some reports of peop
On Tuesday 04 October 2005 13:53, Antoine Martin wrote:
> > The only problem is that, while there was some gross code in 2.6.4 patch,
> > nobody has bothered yet to port it over. And the compatibility layer is
> > very boring (which also means, difficult to get right, because you need
> > to make t
> The only problem is that, while there was some gross code in 2.6.4 patch,
> nobody has bothered yet to port it over. And the compatibility layer is very
> boring (which also means, difficult to get right, because you need to make
> the developers more careful than they'd be inclined to).
Tell
On Tuesday 04 October 2005 13:14, Antoine Martin wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-10-04 at 12:47 +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > On Monday 03 October 2005 23:28, Antoine Martin wrote:
> > > > On Monday 03 October 2005 14:39, Jeff Dike wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 09:28:04AM +0100, Chris Lightfoot w
On Tue, 2005-10-04 at 12:47 +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> On Monday 03 October 2005 23:28, Antoine Martin wrote:
> > > On Monday 03 October 2005 14:39, Jeff Dike wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 09:28:04AM +0100, Chris Lightfoot wrote:
>
> > I can run Java on x86 but not on amd64 guests, have
On Monday 03 October 2005 23:28, Antoine Martin wrote:
> > On Monday 03 October 2005 14:39, Jeff Dike wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 09:28:04AM +0100, Chris Lightfoot wrote:
> I can run Java on x86 but not on amd64 guests, have you got a fix for
> this somewhere?
First report... the fix was
On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 08:59:54PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> On Monday 03 October 2005 14:39, Jeff Dike wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 09:28:04AM +0100, Chris Lightfoot wrote:
> > > At the cost that lots of programs in the guest simply
> > > won't work (strace, make, java, ime). Or has there
On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 09:11:18PM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
[...]
> 5. sysemu too - patch that into the host, or use current -linus or -mm, which
> has it already.
At the cost that lots of programs in the guest simply
won't work (strace, make, java, ime). Or has there been
work fixing this?
--
On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 08:39:46AM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 09:28:04AM +0100, Chris Lightfoot wrote:
> > At the cost that lots of programs in the guest simply
> > won't work (strace, make, java, ime). Or has there been
> > work fixing this?
>
> What are you talking about?
>
> On Monday 03 October 2005 14:39, Jeff Dike wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 09:28:04AM +0100, Chris Lightfoot wrote:
> > > At the cost that lots of programs in the guest simply
> > > won't work (strace, make, java, ime). Or has there been
> > > work fixing this?
> >
> > What are you talking
On Saturday 01 October 2005 07:47, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> Looked at the mailing list, found the following tips:
> 2. Don't use synchronous UBD on anything older than 2.6.9
>
> 2.6.13.2
>
>
> That's all I can remember. Are there others?
>
> Still a fair bit slower than I'd like.
>
> Unfort
On Monday 03 October 2005 17:00, Brock, Anthony - NET wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 2, 2005 at 6:11 PM, Jeff Dike wrote:
> > 5. sysemu too - patch that into the host, or use current
> > -linus or -mm, which
> > has it already.
> Does sysemu now work? I haven't looked at this patch in several months,
> but
On Monday 03 October 2005 14:39, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 09:28:04AM +0100, Chris Lightfoot wrote:
> > At the cost that lots of programs in the guest simply
> > won't work (strace, make, java, ime). Or has there been
> > work fixing this?
>
> What are you talking about? sysemu br
On Sun, Oct 2, 2005 at 6:11 PM, Jeff Dike wrote:
> 5. sysemu too - patch that into the host, or use current
> -linus or -mm, which
> has it already.
Does sysemu now work? I haven't looked at this patch in several months,
but I seem to remember it having problems. Is it now stable? If it is
stable
On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 09:28:04AM +0100, Chris Lightfoot wrote:
> At the cost that lots of programs in the guest simply
> won't work (strace, make, java, ime). Or has there been
> work fixing this?
What are you talking about? sysemu breaks nothing inside the guest.
On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 09:11:18PM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 10:47:17PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > Looked at the mailing list, found the following tips:
> >
> > 1. Set TMP/TEMP/TMPDIR to a tmpfs mounted place.
> >
> > Did that. I see no sign that UML is using
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 10:47:17PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> Looked at the mailing list, found the following tips:
>
> 1. Set TMP/TEMP/TMPDIR to a tmpfs mounted place.
>
> Did that. I see no sign that UML is using it.
>
> 2. Don't use synchronous UBD on anything older than 2.6.9
>
Title: [uml-user] Increasing perfomance
Robin,
You can verify the use of tmpfs with the
'lsof' command. For example, assuming that tmpfs is mounted at /dev/shm, you
might see:
# lsof |egrep 'PID|/shm'
COMMAND
PID USER FD
TYPE DEVICE
SIZE
Looked at the mailing list, found the following tips:
1. Set TMP/TEMP/TMPDIR to a tmpfs mounted place.
Did that. I see no sign that UML is using it.
2. Don't use synchronous UBD on anything older than 2.6.9
2.6.13.2
That's all I can remember. Are there others?
Still a fair bit sl
23 matches
Mail list logo
