From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: kvm or qemu-kvm? Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:02:28 +0200 Message-ID: <4AC4E0A4.9090102@redhat.com> References: <1254277318.17951.26.camel@markov.biostat.ucsf.edu> <4AC4DBEF.5060408@redhat.com> <1254415862.15462.30.camel@corn.betterworld.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm-devel To: Ross Boylan Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:9387 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755783AbZJARDX (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Oct 2009 13:03:23 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1254415862.15462.30.camel@corn.betterworld.us> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 10/01/2009 06:51 PM, Ross Boylan wrote: >>> So which file should I start from? >>> >>> >> qemu-kvm is the userspace component, kvm-kmod is the kernel component as >> an external module. 'kvm' is a package containing both. >> > That helps a lot; maybe that info could go up on the bugs or faq page. > I couldn't find it (that is, there is info that there are kernel and > user space components, but not how these relate to the tar files). > Yes, I plan on writing something up. >> In general the best place to start is with the distro provided packages. >> >> > My distro (Debian) is only at 85, even in unstable. Since it wasn't > current, and also the dependencies will have wide effects on my system > (which I'm trying to keep at the stable release Lenny), I figured > getting the current source and building it myself would be the best > move. For other reasons I'm already running a 2.6.30 kernel from > Debian, which includes kernel side kvm. So I figure I only need to mess > with user space. > Right, stick with your kernel's kvm.ko, qemu-kvm-0.11.0 should make a good fit. -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.