On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 11:40:37AM -0400, Chris Ross wrote:
> 
> On Mar 29, 2007, at 4:19 AM, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> >The changes to use a linux dom0 should only be marginal, and you'll  
> >spot
> >them easily (device names in the config file, mostly) if you  
> >already have
> >a linux domU running.
> 
>   Yup.  Tho the Linux domU's we're running are being fully  
> virtualized, rather than having any knowledge of Xen.

OK, so you could do the same with NetBSD then. In this case a 32bit domU
should run, as well as a 64bit one.

> 
> >This I don't know, I've never tried it on a 64bit OS. I ran NetBSD/ 
> >i386
> >on a para-virtualized guest on a i386 dom0, and it's as fast as a  
> >native Xen
> >guest for CPU-bound tasks. I/O are slow.
> 
>   Hmm.  I may be crossing terms here.  I think what I mean by  
> paravirtualized is what you're calling "native Xen".  ie, a domU that  
> knows it's on Xen and uses the hypervisor to get basically direct  
> access to the hardware, rather than working through "virtual" devices.

OK, we got it in opposite.

> 
> >No, we don't have 64bit support in Xen yet.
> 
>   K.  That's something that's fully possible, right, just not yet  
> working?  Is it something folks are working on?

Yes, it has even been proposed as a google summer of code project this year.
If it's not picked up I'll have to find the time to work on it myself :)

-- 
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer@antioche.eu.org>
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--