Andre Przywara wrote: > If you happen to stuck with 32bit > (pity you!) then I agree that a kvm32 would be nice to have. > Will think about it... I know that 32-bit is a bit slower for some things due to register pressure (but it's a bit faster for some things due to less memory needed for pointers), and it's RAM is limited to about 3GB in practice, which affects some things but is plenty for others. I know it's a pain for KVM developers to support 32-bit hosts. And yes, it would be nice to run a 64-bit guest from time to time. But apart from being a bit slower, is there anything wrong with 32-bit x86s compared with 64-bit that justifies pity? The 32-bitness doesn't seem to be a handicap, only perhaps the expected amount of slowness for a laptop that's 2-3 years old, or a current netbook, compared with current desktops and servers. So I'm having a hard time understanding why 32-bitness is considered bad for KVM - why "pity"? Does it have any other real problems than not being able to emulate 64-bit guests that I should know about, or is it just a matter of distaste? -- Jamie -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
