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
========================================================================