Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Is Qemu dead?
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:51:40
Message-Id: j5vbtr$tkc$2@dough.gmane.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] Is Qemu dead? by Paul Hartman
1 On 2011-09-28, Paul Hartman <paul.hartman+gentoo@×××××.com> wrote:
2 > On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Grant Edwards
3 ><grant.b.edwards@×××××.com> wrote:
4 >> I've been trying to use Qemu to do some test installs of Ubuntu
5 >> server. ?I've used Qemu successfully in the past, but it seems to have
6 >> hit a dead end. ?The "stable" version (0.11) of Qemu just plain
7 >> doesn't work. There are constant segfaults and kernel panics in the
8 >> guest environment.
9 >
10 > Version 0.11 is more than two years old. I don't use stable Gentoo;
11 > is a 2-year-old version of a frequently-updated package normal in
12 > stable, or is the Qemu in Gentoo in need of some attention?
13 >
14 >> I updated to the ~x86 version (0.14) -- while the guest OS installs
15 >> and runs OK, kernel acceleration (kqemu module) is no longer
16 >> supported, and without it Qemu is really slow.
17 >
18 > I am not a Qemu user, but I seem to remember reading that the
19 > preferred method for hardware virtualization/acceleration with Qemu
20 > nowadays is KVM.
21
22 Yes, I should have known that. I had forgotten that kqemu and
23 qemu-kvm were two completely different things.
24
25 >> For now I've switched to VirtualBox, but the console implementation in
26 >> VirtualBox is nightmarishly slow. When I do -l looks like it's
27 >> scrolling by at about 9600 baud.
28 >>
29 >> Is Qemu dead? ?Or just dying?
30 >
31 > The latest version (0.15) was released last month and the Qemu-dev
32 > mailing list has a lot of activity (few dozen messages per day), so it
33 > seems alive to me.
34
35 That's good to hear. I've used it extensively in the past for testing
36 eCos (an embedded RTOS) software on a "PC motherboard" target. Glad to
37 know it's still kicking.
38
39 --
40 Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! Not SENSUOUS ... only
41 at "FROLICSOME" ... and in
42 gmail.com need of DENTAL WORK ... in
43 PAIN!!!