From owner-freebsd-xen@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 10 02:23:10 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5B71106566B for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:23:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gofx-freebsd-xen@m.gmane.org) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E0588FC16 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:23:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gofx-freebsd-xen@m.gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1LWiHF-0007th-Si for freebsd-xen@freebsd.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:23:09 +0000 Received: from 217-68-187-100.dynamic.primacom.net ([217.68.187.100]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:23:09 +0000 Received: from js by 217-68-187-100.dynamic.primacom.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:23:09 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org From: Julian Stecklina Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 03:23:00 +0100 Lines: 23 Message-ID: <878wofghdn.fsf@tabernacle.lan> References: <87d4drxuvn.fsf@tabernacle.localnet> <1234213751.28262.3.camel@phoenix.blechhirn.net> <3c1674c90902091328t45ce61b4q96fff69b52101a65@mail.gmail.com> <878wofxh6p.fsf@tabernacle.localnet> <3c1674c90902091730k71b4075bqb9a4746d684bc6e5@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 217-68-187-100.dynamic.primacom.net X-Archive: encrypt User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Cancel-Lock: sha1:TS3EatYZD0q4hWKa/xYM/00ZDg4= Sender: news Subject: Re: Xen in Virtual Machine? X-BeenThere: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of the freebsd port to xen - implementation and usage List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:23:11 -0000 Kip Macy writes: > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Julian Stecklina wrote: >> Kip Macy writes: >> >> I'll try VMWare. Thanks for the advice. I am still puzzled why Xen >> presents such a problem for hardware-virtualization based VMMs. Maybe >> the virtualization guys at our university can clear that up... >> > > 32-bit Xen uses segments in an unusual way. They may not be > implementing emulation support for this correctly. Do you mean using additional protection rings? Yes, no one does that except Xen. Regards, -- Julian Stecklina Well, take it from an old hand: the only reason it would be easier to program in C is that you can't easily express complex problems in C, so you don't. - Erik Naggum (in comp.lang.lisp)