[arch-general] qemu-kvm vs. qemu upstream
Jelle van der Waa
jelle at vdwaa.nl
Thu Feb 24 11:53:35 EST 2011
On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 10:33 -0600, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Allan McRae <allan at archlinux.org> wrote:
> > If this is virtualbox specific, I'd try qemu-kvm.
> i was just trying to get a concrete answer about this the other day,
> so maybe you can clarify because i keep reading conflicting and/or
> outdated information.
> AFAICS, qemu-kvm is still _different_ from upstream kvm support in
> qemu, correct? i tried rebuilding qemu several times, ensuring i had
> all the options i wanted (SPICE/kvm/etc) and i was getting absolutely
> <expletive deleted> performance -- switch to qemu-kvm and she's
> blazing again, yet many places seem to suggest they are one and the
> i see they definitely have different sources, but would you/anyone
> care to elaborate on the relationship?
> C Anthony
qemu-kvm is the QEMU + KVM provided by the kvm project and normal QEMU
can use KVM as virtualizer. (correct me if i am wrong )
By itself, KVM does not perform any emulation. Instead, a
user-space program uses the /dev/kvm interface to set up the
guest VM's address space, feeds it simulated I/O and maps its
video display back onto the host's. At least two programs
exploit this feature: a modified version of Qemu, and Qemu
itself since version 0.10.0.
In short, if you have VT extensions, use qemu-kvm, if not use qemu since
it emulates ( costs much cpu though ).
QEMU/KVM is for me the best way to run windows, KVM is in the kernel so
now rebuilding of modules, completely open source and it has nice
Jelle van der Waa
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the arch-general