On Wed, 1 Apr 2009, Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak wrote:
> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > and it occurs to me to ask whether anyone would want to get
> > *seriously* into virtualization without having machines with those
> > extensions.
>
> No.
i thought as much. i asked only because i've had a couple people
ask me whether they could set up a couple virtual web servers on some
older systems that were just hanging around, doing not much of
anything. and they really didn't want to shell out any more $$$ for
newer systems with the virt extensions. i suggested it really wasn't
worth trying to save money like that.
> I run Windows as a guest OS on several machines. With the Intel vmx
> flag, performance is extremely good and quite usable.
>
> Without the vmx flag, it is useless. It is too slow to tolerate.
>
> Most new machines now have the virtualization flags. It's always
> worth checking before you buy, though.
i do recall reading somewhere that, yes, you have to be careful to
check that the system not only has the virt extension but that it's
*turned on*. i can't recall where i read that, does anyone have a
URL? something about selling a system cheaper because you've simply
disabled the extension, but advertising it as if it *does* have it.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry:
Have classroom, will lecture.
http://crashcourse.ca Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
========================================================================
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
