[9fans] Parallels Mac OS X Configuration document (networking is functional)

[9fans] Parallels Mac OS X Configuration document (networking is functional)

[David Leimbach]

Not sure if anyone wants to wikify this but I put a document up on
Mordor, complete with an ISO image of the kernel changes that were
needed to get Plan 9 to detect the network device for the Parallels
product on Mac OS X (may work with their Linux/Windows versions too)

http://www.tip9ug.jp/who/leimy/parallels.html

I hope it's helpful.

Thanks to lucho and jmk for working out the BIOS bits and testing this first.

Dave

Re: [9fans] Parallels Mac OS X Configuration document (networking is

[Richard Miller]

> (may work with their Linux/Windows versions too)

I've just been re-working the Plan 9 xen port to make it compatible with
Xen 3.0.  Does parallels on linux make this obsolete?

-- Richard

Re: [9fans] Parallels Mac OS X Configuration document (networking is

[Ronald G Minnich]

Richard Miller wrote:
>>(may work with their Linux/Windows versions too)
> 
> 
> I've just been re-working the Plan 9 xen port to make it compatible with
> Xen 3.0.  Does parallels on linux make this obsolete?
> 
> -- Richard
> 

no, because xen is shipped by linux distro vendors. A xen port is a good 
idea I think, unless it's such a pain that you don't want to fool with 
it :-)

ron

Re: [9fans] Parallels Mac OS X Configuration document (networking is

[David Leimbach]

On 6/14/06, Richard Miller <9fans@hamnavoe.com> wrote:
> > (may work with their Linux/Windows versions too)
>
> I've just been re-working the Plan 9 xen port to make it compatible with
> Xen 3.0.  Does parallels on linux make this obsolete?
>
> -- Richard
>

Well Xen 3.0 supposedly supports the same hardware extensions Intel
has for virtualizing OSes.  In theory if you had an Intel Core Duo or
Core Solo (or Merom or Conroe which are of the Core 2 Duo family) you
could use either Xen or Parallels to run OSes "unmodified".  At least
that's the marketing.

Xen will likely be more popular than Parallels on Linux due to it's
free beer nature, and is likely worth a shot.

Another interesting path might be to run Plan 9 like L4 Linux using L4
as the "hypervisor" of sorts.  Linux seems to do better on L4 than on
Xen performance wise by some numbers I've seen.

I think Xen is more approachable than L4 though, in general, and the
port's already been done before.

Re: [9fans] Parallels Mac OS X Configuration document (networking is

[Jack Johnson]

On 6/14/06, David Leimbach <leimy2k@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well Xen 3.0 supposedly supports the same hardware extensions Intel
> has for virtualizing OSes.  In theory if you had an Intel Core Duo or
> Core Solo (or Merom or Conroe which are of the Core 2 Duo family) you
> could use either Xen or Parallels to run OSes "unmodified".  At least
> that's the marketing.

I didn't realize Parallels had Windows and Linux versions (probably
because I don't have a Duo handy).

Has anyone tried Plan 9 unmodified on a non-Mac Duo with Parallels?  I
see they have a 30-day demo.

-Jack

RE: [9fans] Parallels Mac OS X Configuration document (networking is

[Retzki, Sascha [Xplain]]

> -----Original Message-----
> Another interesting path might be to run Plan 9 like L4 Linux using L4
> as the "hypervisor" of sorts.  Linux seems to do better on L4 than on
> Xen performance wise by some numbers I've seen.

RAVE MODE: ON
	Maybe because of the XML-RPC in Xen...
EOR

Re: [9fans] Parallels Mac OS X Configuration document (networking is

[Ronald G Minnich]

Retzki, Sascha [Xplain] wrote:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>Another interesting path might be to run Plan 9 like L4 Linux using L4
>>as the "hypervisor" of sorts.  Linux seems to do better on L4 than on
>>Xen performance wise by some numbers I've seen.
> 
> 
> RAVE MODE: ON
> 	Maybe because of the XML-RPC in Xen...
> EOR

as much as I dislike xml-rpc in xen, that is not an issue here.

let me know if you get l4 to actually *build* on linux ...

ron

Re: [9fans] Parallels Mac OS X Configuration document (networking is

[David Leimbach]

On 6/14/06, Ronald G Minnich <rminnich@lanl.gov> wrote:
> Retzki, Sascha [Xplain] wrote:
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>Another interesting path might be to run Plan 9 like L4 Linux using L4
> >>as the "hypervisor" of sorts.  Linux seems to do better on L4 than on
> >>Xen performance wise by some numbers I've seen.
> >
> >
> > RAVE MODE: ON
> >       Maybe because of the XML-RPC in Xen...
> > EOR
>
> as much as I dislike xml-rpc in xen, that is not an issue here.
>
> let me know if you get l4 to actually *build* on linux ...

I've cross compiled it many times on PowerPC Macs with an ELF
toolchain.  I've not tried it recently though on any platform, but I
have plans to.  That was just the demo applications though all built
together into a "piggybacked" binary, since there was no GRUB
available for multi-boot loading on PPC at the time.  (though GRUB2 is
supposed to support that)

I presume we're talking about Pistachio also?

Dave

>
> ron
>

Re: [9fans] Parallels Mac OS X Configuration document (networking is

[Ronald G Minnich]

afterburner would not build in early trials for me.

ron

Re: [9fans] Parallels Mac OS X Configuration document (networking is

[David Leimbach]

Afterburner is not something I tried at all in my time with Pistachio.

On 6/14/06, Ronald G Minnich <rminnich@lanl.gov> wrote:
> afterburner would not build in early trials for me.
>
> ron
>