Virtual Server 2005 R2 and hardware virtualization

re: Virtual Server 2005 R2 and hardware virtualization

Jonathan — Tue, 02 May 2006 13:41:57 GMT

1. Is "hardware virtualization support" the same technology that was formerly called Vanderpool (Intel) and Pacifica (AMD)?

2. What is the relation between this and Hypervisor? What is Hypervisor anyways?

re: Virtual Server 2005 R2 and hardware virtualization

Toby Broom — Tue, 02 May 2006 13:44:07 GMT

It's fustrating to see all this devlopment going into Virtual Server and seemingly non into VirtualPC

I know you can't comment on release etc, so I though I'd just voice my views.

re: Virtual Server 2005 R2 and hardware virtualization

Bogdan H — Tue, 02 May 2006 14:52:40 GMT

Same thought here. Is Virtual PC left behind? Long time and no update...

Ring -1 and unsafe user-mode instructions

James Risto — Tue, 02 May 2006 21:53:24 GMT

I had read that the design of VT included a "ring -1" so that guests could run at ring 0 and this would be a benefit. Or, is this still only for no-additions guests? Also, there are a few unsafe usermode instructions that were being "fixed". Or are they few and far between? Sorry for the vagueness.

re: Virtual Server 2005 R2 and hardware virtualization

Virtual PC Guy — Wed, 03 May 2006 07:18:26 GMT

Jonathan -

1) Yes it is.

2) This is something different. I will do a post explaining the difference some time soon (ish)

James -

Yes - it is the 'ring -1' that allows us to run kernel mode directly - so yes this is for non-additions guests only. And as for unsafe user mode instructions - they are very few and far between.

Cheers,
Ben

Coincidence?

Andrzej Zaborowski — Wed, 17 May 2006 13:01:30 GMT

I was wondering what is the relation between QEMU/kqemu (http://www.qemu.org/) introducing the full virtualisation support about two months ago (http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2006-02/msg00078.html) and Virtual Server doing the same just now :-)