Mailing List Archive

> Sorry if this is an FAQ but I have just joined the ML\after reading about
> Xen in a magazine article.

Cool! Xen seems to be getting lots of press coverage these days, which is
nice :-)

> I run almost exclusively x86_64 hardware these days and am wondering how
> x86_64 support is coming along. The article mentions support for x86_64 in
> V3, due it says this Summer.
>
> Are there any developer x86_64 versions available to try yet?

The unstable tree contains initial support for x86_64 - it's still under heavy
development, though. I'm not sure how far along the guest support is (there
are others on this list who follow it more closely than I) but you should at
least be able to compile Xen and boot dom0 (admin domain).

Note that Xen 2.0 will still run on x86_64 bit in 32 bit compatibility mode
for the time being.

Cheers,
Mark

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

On Friday 27 May 2005 15:58, Mark Williamson wrote:
> > Sorry if this is an FAQ but I have just joined the ML\after reading about
> > Xen in a magazine article.
>
> Cool! Xen seems to be getting lots of press coverage these days, which is
> nice :-)

It was on the front cover of Linux Format (UK). No a mag I usually buy, but
that drew my attention :)

> >
> > Are there any developer x86_64 versions available to try yet?
>
> The unstable tree contains initial support for x86_64 - it's still under
> heavy development, though. I'm not sure how far along the guest support is
> (there are others on this list who follow it more closely than I) but you
> should at least be able to compile Xen and boot dom0 (admin domain).
>
Ok

> Note that Xen 2.0 will still run on x86_64 bit in 32 bit compatibility mode
> for the time being.

I'm primarily interested in 64bit support, with 32bit guests a useful extra
feature.

Thanks for the info; I'll lurk on the ML and see how things shape up :)

Andrew

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Mark Williamson <mark.williamson@cl.cam.ac.uk> writes:

Hi,

> Cool! Xen seems to be getting lots of press coverage these days, which is
> nice :-)

Manuel Bouyer's and Kip Macy's work has broadened audience to bsd users
too :)

It's really nice to get a virtualization solution that doesn't require
an iSeries or a zSeries.

> The unstable tree contains initial support for x86_64 - it's still under heavy
> development, though. I'm not sure how far along the guest support is (there
> are others on this list who follow it more closely than I) but you should at
> least be able to compile Xen and boot dom0 (admin domain).

Will it be possible to mix 32 and 64 bits domains under control of a 64
bits enabled hypervisor, just like the following :
- xen + domain0 in 64 bits mode
- mix of 32/64 bits domainU

TIA

Éric Masson

--
sachez que "je suis" comme ca ici et "je serai" toujours
comme ca ailleurs.
-+- ALBATOR in GNU : Con et fier de l'être. -+-

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

> Will it be possible to mix 32 and 64 bits domains under
> control of a 64 bits enabled hypervisor, just like the following :
> - xen + domain0 in 64 bits mode
> - mix of 32/64 bits domainU

No: given that 64 bit domains will support 32 bit user space, there's
not a huge benefit in supporting 32 bit domains on a 64 bit hypervisor
directly.

We might revisit this decision later, but it certainly isn't a priority,
and would involve a performance penalty anyhow.

Best,
Ian

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

> No: given that 64 bit domains will support 32 bit user space, there's
> not a huge benefit in supporting 32 bit domains on a 64 bit hypervisor
> directly.

I think VT enabled x86_64 boxes will run unmodified x86_32 guests though?
(someone correct me if I'm wrong).

Cheers,
Mark

> We might revisit this decision later, but it certainly isn't a priority,
> and would involve a performance penalty anyhow.
>
> Best,
> Ian

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

"Ian Pratt" <m+Ian.Pratt@cl.cam.ac.uk> writes:

Hi Ian,

> No: given that 64 bit domains will support 32 bit user space, there's
> not a huge benefit in supporting 32 bit domains on a 64 bit hypervisor
> directly.
>
> We might revisit this decision later, but it certainly isn't a priority,
> and would involve a performance penalty anyhow.

Thanks for your answer

Éric Masson

--
Progrès (nm) : Ce qui a conduit d'un utilisateur intelligent devant un
terminal passif à un utilisateur passif devant un terminal intelligent.

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

> I think VT enabled x86_64 boxes will run unmodified x86_32
> guests though?
> (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

That's correct, but probably not in 3.0.0, but one of the point releases
later.

Ian

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users