From owner-freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Dec 14 02:36:56 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D946EF94;
 Sat, 14 Dec 2013 02:36:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from phlegethon.blisses.org (phlegethon.blisses.org [50.56.97.101])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BD931778;
 Sat, 14 Dec 2013 02:36:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from blisses.org (cocytus.blisses.org [23.25.209.73])
 by phlegethon.blisses.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D71E11F8191;
 Fri, 13 Dec 2013 21:36:52 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 21:36:52 -0500
From: Mason Loring Bliss <mason@blisses.org>
To: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: XEN vs XENHVM?
Message-ID: <20131214023652.GY19296@blisses.org>
References: <20131214022355.GX19296@blisses.org> <52ABC23E.4020408@freebsd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <52ABC23E.4020408@freebsd.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of the freebsd port to xen - implementation and usage
 <freebsd-xen.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-xen>,
 <mailto:freebsd-xen-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-xen/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-xen@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-xen-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-xen>,
 <mailto:freebsd-xen-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 02:36:56 -0000

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 06:28:14PM -0800, Colin Percival wrote:

> The XEN option is for *paravirtualized* Xen -- aka. the original version,
> before Intel and AMD added virtualization support into their CPUs. HVM uses
> "hardware virtualization", but we also use PV drivers where available.

Oh, hm. So, there was never any reason for me to be running XEN (vs XENHVM)
on this hardware in the first place! Heh. I'll switch over my existing system
and try GENERIC on a new box I'm spinning up this weekend.

Thank you.

-- 
The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig
to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which. - G. Orwell