qemu or qemu-kvm for kvm in squeeze
in [Debian]
|
From: Martin Kraus on 8 Mar 2010 10:10 On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 10:27:42PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: > On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 01:41:54PM +0100, Martin Kraus wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 07, 2010 at 09:58:43PM -0600, Mark Allums wrote: > > > Earlier, I wrote what I think was a confusing reply to this. > > In Debian > > Squeeze, there are two packages for qemu, one named qemu, the other qemu-kvm. > > Both are based on version 0.11.1 of qemu and both supposedly support kvm. > > Wll at one point, yes but > > http://packages.qa.debian.org/k/kvm.html > [2009-12-31] kvm REMOVED from testing (Britney) > > > My question is, why there are two apparently identical qemu packages. Which > > one should I use with kvm. > > Your answer is ..... qemu-kvm > This is stable release of kvm. > http://packages.qa.debian.org/q/qemu-kvm.html > http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/qemu-kvm > See /usr/share/doc/qemu-kvm/README.Debian for more information. >From what I've read the plan is to merge back into qemu instead of having a separate fork. I've found for example grub-firmware-qemu package, which works with qemu but I haven't been able to get it to start with qemu-kvm. If both I functionaly equivalent, I'd prefer to use qemu as the primary development of virtio etc will go probably in there, since it's not kvm specific. mk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100308134550.GD20080(a)finrod
From: Mark Allums on 8 Mar 2010 12:40 On 3/8/2010 6:41 AM, Martin Kraus wrote: > On Sun, Mar 07, 2010 at 09:58:43PM -0600, Mark Allums wrote: >> Earlier, I wrote what I think was a confusing reply to this. > > ... > >> >> o QEMU is emulation. >> o Virtualbox is Full virtualization. >> o QEMU+KVM is a funny beast, it is paravirtualization with kernel >> virtualization, you need hardware CPU support for it >> o kqemu is a kernel module accelerator with kernel virtualization, >> no hardware support needed, but it gives poor speed. >> >> QEMU more-or-less has KVM built into it since about version 0.10. >> >> Wikipedia has a lot of articles about virtualization, so I would go >> there for more. >> >> Go with Virtualbox unless you have some special need. > > Hi. I think you misunderstood my question. I'm trying to switch from xen to > kvm, because xen just doesn't work on that particular server. QEMU provides > emulation for IO and uses KVM for memory/cpu virtualization. In Debian > Squeeze, there are two packages for qemu, one named qemu, the other qemu-kvm. > Both are based on version 0.11.1 of qemu and both supposedly support kvm. > > My question is, why there are two apparently identical qemu packages. Which > one should I use with kvm. > > thanks > mk > > This is a better question, and will get better replies. My replies were general, and you had something specific in mind. It pays to be specific. I can tell you about virt tech, though in my scatterbrained way, I will misuse the terminology. But, I am not as familiar with QEMU w.r.t. *Debian*. I should have let someone else answer. I still say, use Virtualbox instead. Mrk Allums -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4B95348A.5020903(a)allums.com
From: Martin Kraus on 8 Mar 2010 16:10 On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:31:54AM -0600, Mark Allums wrote: > This is a better question, and will get better replies. My replies > were general, and you had something specific in mind. It pays to be > specific. I can tell you about virt tech, though in my > scatterbrained way, I will misuse the terminology. But, I am not as > familiar with QEMU w.r.t. *Debian*. I should have let someone else > answer. > > I still say, use Virtualbox instead. >> Hi. I have been wondering what is the difference between qemu and qemu-kvm >> packages for kvm virtualization. Manual page in qemu packages shows, that >> it should be able to work with kvm. Uncle google is silent about this. This seems pretty specific to me. I have asked what is the difference between qemu and qemu-kvm for kvm virtualization. Both support kvm and both are based on qemu 0.11.1 so I wanted to know what is the difference. I'm not really sure that virtualbox is the right thing for a server. I'm not much sure about kvm+qemu either, but xen just keeps crashing so there isn't much I can do about it. mk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100308210824.GA3452(a)finrod
From: thib on 8 Mar 2010 18:40 Martin Kraus wrote: > This seems pretty specific to me. I have asked what is the difference between > qemu and qemu-kvm for kvm virtualization. Both support kvm and both are based > on qemu 0.11.1 so I wanted to know what is the difference. > > I'm not really sure that virtualbox is the right thing for a server. I'm not > much sure about kvm+qemu either, but xen just keeps crashing so there isn't > much I can do about it. KVM is a solution, and a good one. Rather than using its own hypervisor software and a special guest to manage the domain, it uses the Linux kernel itself. The latter already provides a hell lot of subsystems relevant to hypervisor technology, which makes KVM really simpler in terms of complexity, thus arguably less prone to problems. Provided you're comfortable with Linux and that you trust its stability, KVM is probably your best solution. If not, then Xen is more independent and has its advantages too; their architectures are just different and inherently offer different things. More info relative to my last post: if you want to use KVM, you do *need* the modified qemu software provided by the kvm package (which really points to qemu-kvm). These changes are currently pushed upstream [1]. I hope it clears any ambiguity. I agree about VirtualBox, it clearly targets workstations (and it's good at it). I can only recommend Tim Jones' articles on IBM's DeveloperWorks site, they provide really good overviews on this subject (and others). Nothing to do with IBM, BTW, I just found they were quality stuff. [1] http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/Main_Page -thib -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4B958935.70709(a)stammed.net
From: Mark Allums on 8 Mar 2010 21:20 On 3/8/2010 3:08 PM, Martin Kraus wrote: > On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:31:54AM -0600, Mark Allums wrote: >> This is a better question, and will get better replies. My replies >> were general, and you had something specific in mind. It pays to be >> specific. I can tell you about virt tech, though in my >> scatterbrained way, I will misuse the terminology. But, I am not as >> familiar with QEMU w.r.t. *Debian*. I should have let someone else >> answer. >> >> I still say, use Virtualbox instead. > >>> Hi. I have been wondering what is the difference between qemu and qemu-kvm >>> packages for kvm virtualization. Manual page in qemu packages shows, that >>> it should be able to work with kvm. Uncle google is silent about this. > > This seems pretty specific to me. I have asked what is the difference between > qemu and qemu-kvm for kvm virtualization. Both support kvm and both are based > on qemu 0.11.1 so I wanted to know what is the difference. > > I'm not really sure that virtualbox is the right thing for a server. I'm not > much sure about kvm+qemu either, but xen just keeps crashing so there isn't > much I can do about it. > > mk > > Sorry, there is some (more) confusion. I was referring to the original post, which seemed to me to be about a completely different topic. There is always vmware ESX; consider it. Have you used vbox? It is a less sophisticated product than some server virtualizations, but I have never had it crash. (I hate very much to mention it, but if Windows Server 2008 R2 is even of the remotest possibility, MS's Hyper-V works pretty well.) Are you committed to QEMU? Vserver kernels are specifically for server roles. In short, there are lots of choices for Debian beside QEMU. Consider them. qemu/kvm/qemu-kvm: I don't think there is a significant difference between the two packages anymore; you can choose which to use based on convenience rather than performance. MAA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4B95AF75.2080505(a)allums.com
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Prev: useradd: Problem joining into a Samba domain Next: Disabling Swap Activation Message |