Laptops and hardware virtualization

[jarod-ajLrJawYSntWk0Htik3J/w at public.gmane.org (Jarod Wilson)]

On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Jerry Feldman <gaf-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On 02/14/2010 05:32 PM, Scott Ehrlich wrote:
>> What is the desired end result? As I learned from this list, among
>> others, the VT support in BIOS only appears to affect the ability of
>> the system to run a 64-bit VM. Am I missing something else? Was there
>> something in the original question of the OP I lost track of?
> One of the issue is being able to run 64-bit VM, but the other is
> performance. Basically, you do not need the virtualization support in
> the chips to virtualize. VMWare has been doing it for years.

Also nb: its not universally true that you need hardware virt support
for 64-bit guests. First-generation Opterons running VMware still
support 'em without it, VMware and AMD actually partnered to make sure
that worked. Also note that VMware's 64-bit binary translation on
Opteron actually yielded much faster guests than Intel systems using
hardware virt at the time. Hardware virt support has improved
drastically since then though.

/me spent a week at a "next-gen virt" thing at AMD in Boxboro ~3 years ago...

-- 
Jarod Wilson
jarod-ajLrJawYSntWk0Htik3J/w at public.gmane.org