Re: What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Matthew O'Connor
Subject Re: What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?
Date
Msg-id 4615FC8C.4070804@zeut.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?  (Devrim Gündüz <devrim@CommandPrompt.com>)
Responses Re: What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?  (Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
Devrim Gündüz wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 01:23 -0400, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
>> The other thing to consider is that CentOS 5 has Xen built right in,
>> so you should be able run VMs without VMWare on it. 
> 
> ... if the kernel of the OS has Xen support, there will be no
> performance penalty (only 2%-3%) (Para-virtualization). Otherwise, there
> will be full-virtualization, and we should expect a performance loss
> about 30% for each guest OS (like Windows).

I may be wrong but I thought that the guest OS kernel only needs special 
support if the underlying CPU doesn't have virtualization support which 
pretty much all the new Intel and AMD chips have.  No?


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Gregory Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: Auto Partitioning
Next
From: "Sander Steffann"
Date:
Subject: Re: What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?