 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> On 5/17/2011 15:22, nemesis wrote:
>> Fabrice Bellard, head of funky projects like FFmpeg and QEMU, wrote a 486
>
> I have been trying to figure out how fast it is compared to a modern
> computer. If you're playing with it anyway (I don't have an appropriate
> browser installed), let me know if you do any performance comparisons?
sadly, it doesn't run in my android nor I have up-to-date versions at
home or work. Some guys were able to run even emacs on it... LOL
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
> On 17/05/2011 23:22, nemesis wrote:
>> Fabrice Bellard, head of funky projects like FFmpeg and QEMU, wrote a
>> 486 emulator in javascript and put a simplified Linux to run on it.
>
> My mind is still blown by this. The author casually chats about it as if
> emulating something as over-complicated as an IA32 CPU is in some way
> "easy".
>
> Apparently the reason it requires a modern browser is that it uses
> "typed arrays", a newish JS feature that let you manipulate arbitrary
> binary data in memory (somewhat) efficiently. The Linux distro is
> apparently BusyBox, together with a toy C99 compiler written by the
> author of the emulator.
>
> His other projects include an online scientific calculator with graphing
> mode...
a REAL MACHO PROGRAMMER, in other words. I think he's only missing a
GPU pathtracer like everyone is doing these days. :)
BTW, it should be useful for cloudy-like virtualization, running Linux
apps directly from the browser... :)
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/05/2011 11:33 PM, Darren New wrote:
> I have been trying to figure out how fast it is compared to a modern
> computer. If you're playing with it anyway (I don't have an appropriate
> browser installed), let me know if you do any performance comparisons?
On my work PC (Core 2 Duo), it takes less than 30 seconds to open
Firefox, download the web page *and* boot the Linux kernel to a Bash
prompt. It's THAT FAST.
As I say, response times after that are about typical for a live CD.
(I.e., slightly sluggish, but not exactly what you'd call "slow".)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 18 May 2011 14:55:33 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> For that matter, it should be fairly trivial to run QEMU inside QEMU
> inside QEMU, so...
Actually, it isn't - virtualizing virtualization solutions doesn't tend
to work very well at all.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/05/2011 10:04 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2011 14:55:33 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>
>> For that matter, it should be fairly trivial to run QEMU inside QEMU
>> inside QEMU, so...
>
> Actually, it isn't - virtualizing virtualization solutions doesn't tend
> to work very well at all.
QEMU doesn't use hardware virtualisation. It does software emulation
only. This is why it's trivial to do what I described.
For stuff that uses real hardware virtualisation... yeah, that tends not
to work. Although I have successfully run VirtualBox inside VMware
Workstation. (Had to tweak some options though, turning off some of the
hardware acceleration...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 18 May 2011 22:26:54 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> On 18/05/2011 10:04 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 May 2011 14:55:33 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>
>>> For that matter, it should be fairly trivial to run QEMU inside QEMU
>>> inside QEMU, so...
>>
>> Actually, it isn't - virtualizing virtualization solutions doesn't tend
>> to work very well at all.
>
> QEMU doesn't use hardware virtualisation. It does software emulation
> only. This is why it's trivial to do what I described.
Even for software-based virtualization (emulation is different), it
wouldn't work so well, to the best of my knowledge.
> For stuff that uses real hardware virtualisation... yeah, that tends not
> to work. Although I have successfully run VirtualBox inside VMware
> Workstation. (Had to tweak some options though, turning off some of the
> hardware acceleration...)
It can be done, sure; it's not very stable. I've spent time working with
virtualization and doing something like trying to run XEN under VMware is
possible and sometimes works, but not reliably enough for what I needed
it for.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/05/2011 18:02, nemesis wrote:
> BTW, it should be useful for cloudy-like virtualization, running Linux
> apps directly from the browser... :)
Cloudy virtualisation. I like that... heh.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Actually, it isn't - virtualizing virtualization solutions doesn't tend
>>> to work very well at all.
>>
>> QEMU doesn't use hardware virtualisation. It does software emulation
>> only. This is why it's trivial to do what I described.
>
> Even for software-based virtualization (emulation is different), it
> wouldn't work so well, to the best of my knowledge.
My understanding is that QEMU does full software emulation of the guest
system. (It can even emulate an architecture different than the one it's
running on.) Assuming it emulates the full capabilities of the guest, I
don't see why you can't run QEMU inside QEMU.
If it's using the host hardware to accelerate things, then that of
course is a different matter. Generally the scheme only supports one
layer of virtualisation, not two.
>> For stuff that uses real hardware virtualisation... yeah, that tends not
>> to work. Although I have successfully run VirtualBox inside VMware
>> Workstation. (Had to tweak some options though, turning off some of the
>> hardware acceleration...)
>
> It can be done, sure; it's not very stable.
I'm sure it's not a very "supported" route, but I managed to get Windows
XP running inside Windows XP (running inside Windows XP). I only
actually wanted to see what VirtualBox is like, without installing it
for real. (Isn't that the point of desktop virtualisation? To test
things without "really" installing them?) I wouldn't recommend using
such a configuration "for real", no.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 19 May 2011 09:10:32 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>>> Actually, it isn't - virtualizing virtualization solutions doesn't
>>>> tend to work very well at all.
>>>
>>> QEMU doesn't use hardware virtualisation. It does software emulation
>>> only. This is why it's trivial to do what I described.
>>
>> Even for software-based virtualization (emulation is different), it
>> wouldn't work so well, to the best of my knowledge.
>
> My understanding is that QEMU does full software emulation of the guest
> system. (It can even emulate an architecture different than the one it's
> running on.) Assuming it emulates the full capabilities of the guest, I
> don't see why you can't run QEMU inside QEMU.
It's not trival to emulate an emulation system under emulation. Just
like it isn't trivial to virtualize a virtualization system in a virtual
environment. Trust me, I've worked with this stuff quite a lot.
QEMU doesn't emulate the guest OS, just the hardware. That's the essence
of virtualization.
> If it's using the host hardware to accelerate things, then that of
> course is a different matter. Generally the scheme only supports one
> layer of virtualisation, not two.
That's not really what hardware virtualization does. It essentially
creates a separate Ring0 space within the hardware to run things at full
hardware speed.
>>> For stuff that uses real hardware virtualisation... yeah, that tends
>>> not to work. Although I have successfully run VirtualBox inside VMware
>>> Workstation. (Had to tweak some options though, turning off some of
>>> the hardware acceleration...)
>>
>> It can be done, sure; it's not very stable.
>
> I'm sure it's not a very "supported" route, but I managed to get Windows
> XP running inside Windows XP (running inside Windows XP). I only
> actually wanted to see what VirtualBox is like, without installing it
> for real. (Isn't that the point of desktop virtualisation? To test
> things without "really" installing them?) I wouldn't recommend using
> such a configuration "for real", no.
Yes, it's been *done*, but it's not particularly *stable*. For my own
purposes, I needed an environment that was stable enough to be reliable
for testing people's skills on virtualization technologies. Even the SMEs
that I talked to about it said "you're nuts because it just isn't stable
to do so".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/05/2011 11:22 PM, nemesis wrote:
> Fabrice Bellard, head of funky projects like FFmpeg and QEMU, wrote a
> 486 emulator in javascript and put a simplified Linux to run on it.
> Check it out, if you have latest version of Firefox or Chrome at least:
>
> http://bellard.org/jslinux
Note: This is still insane.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
