From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Patrick Kelly" To: "'Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs'" <9fans@9fans.net> References: <003201cadd83$81a9e5d0$84fdb170$@gmail.com> <2AE2F180-399F-4134-8755-300332DA7231@fastmail.fm> In-Reply-To: <2AE2F180-399F-4134-8755-300332DA7231@fastmail.fm> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 13:48:51 -0400 Message-ID: <000201cadd8d$14126ec0$3c374c40$@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9fans] Recommended emulators/VMs for P9 install Topicbox-Message-UUID: 049a2ddc-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > > > > The only emulator you're spending time on is Qemu, the rest are > > virtualizers or simulators, and there is a significant difference. > > Emulators are much slower, because of what they have to do. >=20 > Qemu is capable of full emulation, but when host & guest architecture = match (or are compatible, e.g. x86_32 guest and x86_64 host) > it's a virtualizer. Given x86 on x86, there is a world of difference = between Bochs's performance and Qemu's. It's mostly full and not completely accurate. I don't use Qemu so this may be wrong, but I was under the impression = Qemu was an emulator unless you used kqemu, and then it lost emulation = capability's. > Qemu's display is slow, whatever other factors exist. Drawterm to a = qemu cpu server is very much faster. I can't speak for disk IO > except to say it seems fast under my light usage. >=20 > Also, to nit-pick, don't all virtualisers emulate peripheral hardware? For peripheral hardware, emulators and virtualizers are mostly the same, = but that isn't the main reason most people use them, it's about the = execution environment, which involves how the CPU is handled. Seeing as = you didn't bring up a single full system emulator, I doubt you care more = about peripherals.