This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Vertualization of Unmodified Operating Systems

To: Dave Feustel <dfeustel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Vertualization of Unmodified Operating Systems
From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 18:10:02 +0200
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 09:10:22 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200604152030.03386.dfeustel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <200604151739.10975.dfeustel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <pan.2006.> <200604152030.03386.dfeustel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051017)
Dave Feustel wrote:
> On Saturday 15 April 2006 17:53, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 17:39:10 -0500, Dave Feustel wrote:
>>>AMD Pacifica and Intel's VT make possible the virtualization of unmodified
>>>operating systems. Is it still necessary to add code to the hypervisor to
>>>support specific operating systems, or can Xen, as written, support any
>>>arbitrary OS that successfully boots on a PC? (I'm thinking of the BSDs
>>This sort of thing has been addressed here before. 
> I know this and I appreciate your patience. I definitely don't
> pick things up or figure things out as quickly now as I did 
> when I was younger.
>>While theoritically, 
>>VT and SVM ought to allow any OS to run under Xen, in practice, if an OS
>>hasn't been tested as a guest under Xen, it is likely to turn up some bugs
>>or incompleteness.  Over time, this will certainly be a less of an issue.
>>The problem has to do with the fact that different OS's will use different
>>instructions when accessing things like page tables.  Right now, Xen only
>>emulates the instructions that we know are used by the systems we test
>>with (things like Linux and certain versions of Windows).
> Xen and OpenBSD running under Xen are rapidly rising to the top of my list
> of things to work with as general availability of AM2-socket motherboards and 
> revision F AMD64 chips approaches. Xen and hardware virtualization have been
> for a while now at the very top of the list of topics I follow in the news.

OpenBSD 3.9 works quite fine (installed using the native installer in
the virtualized environment!) as an unmodified guest on my Intel VT box,
with following caveats:

*) pcn(4) - aka AMD Pcnet does not seem to work well with the emulated
one (send works - receive does not)

*) ne(4) does work but is complaining about corrupted nic memory under
heavy traffic (does not seem to affect it much other than logging th errors)


Xen-devel mailing list