From ArchWiki
Revision as of 17:52, 20 August 2013 by Lahwaacz (Talk | contribs) (needed Tap networking with QEMU scripts a rewrite?: rm closed discussion)

Jump to: navigation, search

Linear RAID

When I was updating the article yesterday, I had tried to fit the section about linear raid (boot a VM from a partition by prepending a MBR to it) into the article better. But I'm not sure the technique described is the right one at all. It looks like it works, but wouldn't it be easier to install a bootloader directly to the partition (e.g. syslinux)? Then the VM could be booted directly from the partition simply by using it as its virtual disk. --Synchronicity (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing sections for EOL versions of Windows

I think we should remove the instructions/sections for versions of Windows that are not supported by Microsoft anymore/are considered end-of-life. QEMU#Windows-specific_notes still has sections for Windows 95 through Windows 2000. Microsoft stopped supporting Windows 2000 in 2010. I think we should keep anything that is generally applicable to Windows XP (and recent) from those sections and get rid of the rest of it.

Does anyone object?
-- Jstjohn (talk) 08:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fine to remove everything before XP, after all this is not Windows chronicle... So +1 from me.
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Go for it, I'd also be curious to know how much information in the article is duplicating which would be bad according to Help:Style#Hypertext metaphor.
-- Kynikos (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I've just removed that old information. I agree that it would be good for someone to go through QEMU's wiki and eliminate any duplicated information.
-- Jstjohn (talk) 01:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC) isn't very verbose, many instructions are not for Arch and it may contain outdated information (last edit on most pages 1-2 years back), so I think deduplication is not necessary. is much more verbose, but the same as above applies, so I think deduplication is not necessary in this case either.
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 07:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

qemu-* vs qemu-system-*?

What's the difference between qemu-* and qemu-system-*? So far, I haven't seen too much of a difference, except for a quite noticeable difference in filesize:

# ls -l $(which qemu{-system,}-x86_64);
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 4793008 Jun  8 02:14 /usr/bin/qemu-system-x86_64
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 2406208 Jun  8 02:14 /usr/bin/qemu-x86_64
Next time please add a signature after your post by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
There have been some changes recently and the wiki page isn't yet fully updated. I guess that the old qemu binary has been replaced by qemu-system-* depending on architecture and qemu-* binary is used internally. See qemu(1) for more details.
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 09:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I've done some more research on this: qemu-system-* binaries emulate full virtual machine (that's currently described in QEMU, some time ago qemu was used for this purpose), whereas qemu-* binaries allow executing statically linked binaries for different architecture than the host system. You can even chroot into different-architecture system emulating even dynamically linked binaries. Perhaps some mention of this could be added to QEMU. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Creating bridge manually

I really don't know what to do with this section. I'd say it has been superseded by QEMU#Creating bridge using qemu-bridge-helper (available since qemu-1.1, we now have qemu-1.5) - or is someone still using this method? Perhaps link to or is sufficient. What do you think? -- Lahwaacz (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Preparing an (Arch) Linux guest

adding the virtio modules to use virtual devices doesn't appear to be necessary as of the VM I built this week(Jul 26, 2013). Kernel 3.9.9-1 Surlyjake (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)