On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 03:28:29PM -0800, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 12/5/2013 12:30 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> > AFAIK, KVM does not support host CPU's which don't have virtualization
> > support. If OP has somewhat aged hardware, he may have no option but to
> > use VirtualBox.
>
> that would be some old crufty hardware, like pentium-4 (or the
> equivalent single core xeon stuff), hardly worth TRYING to virtualize
> on, except for very low performance 32-bit-only VM's, for test/dev kind
> of applications.
Not arguing with you, but... I recall hearing probably only a couple
years ago that not all the contemporary Intel processors exposed that
option, so you couldn't use it on some processors. The writer of that
blurb reported no obvious rhyme or reason why one would have it but
another wouldn't.
And on the topic of VirtualBox, I can't get 4.3 to work right on my
system (AMD Phenom II X2) which DOES have the virtual extensions enabled
in the BIOS. It kept complaining that it wasn't enabled (or maybe did
not exist, I can't recall exactly). Apparently some motherboards and/or
chipsets work differently in re how they expose the feature, and
the newest VB couldn't see it. So I stayed with the 4.2 series which
more or less does work. (tho it still refuses to let me run a 64-bit
Linux on VB even though I'm running Centos 64-bit and a 64-bit VB.)
Go figure.
--
---- Fred Smith -- fredex@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -----------------------------
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of
heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
------------------------------ Matthew 7:21 (niv) -----------------------------
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
