Re: Intel-only or AMD Opteron as well?

Re: Intel-only or AMD Opteron as well?

[Izik Eidus]

Fernando Cassia wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is my first message to the list, and I've just discovered KVM... 
> so please have patience with my (probably stupid and answered in some 
> FAQ already ;) questions...
>
> The first question that comes to mind is that the project description 
> mentions Intel's virtualization features...
>
> I don't have an Intel CPU. I have a dual-core AMD Opteron 2216 (Socket 
> F, code-name Santa Rosa)
>
> http://www.chiplist.com/AMD_Opteron_DP_HE_2000_series_Dual_Core_processor_Santa_Rosa_Rev_F_High_Efficiency/tree3f-subsection--2269-/
>
> It supposedly includes AMD's virtualization features, aka "Pacifica".
> The $1M (or $0.02) question is... does KVM include any optimizations 
> for the AMD  extensions? Or should I look at other solutions like 
> VMWare or VirtualBox?
>
kvm have support to amd virtualization extensions., you your cpu have 
it, you should have no problem to use kvm.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/

Intel-only or AMD Opteron as well?

[Fernando Cassia]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 921 bytes --]

Hi,

This is my first message to the list, and I've just discovered KVM... so
please have patience with my (probably stupid and answered in some FAQ
already ;) questions...

The first question that comes to mind is that the project description
mentions Intel's virtualization features...

I don't have an Intel CPU. I have a dual-core AMD Opteron 2216 (Socket F,
code-name Santa Rosa)

http://www.chiplist.com/AMD_Opteron_DP_HE_2000_series_Dual_Core_processor_Santa_Rosa_Rev_F_High_Efficiency/tree3f-subsection--2269-/

It supposedly includes AMD's virtualization features, aka "Pacifica".
The $1M (or $0.02) question is... does KVM include any optimizations for the
AMD virtualization extensions? Or should I look at other solutions like
VMWare or VirtualBox?

Thanks,
Fernando
-- 
Dream of the Daily Mail
It is the Holy Grail
And then the BBC
Your life would be complete

-Manic Street Preachers, "Royal Correspondent"

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1184 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 228 bytes --]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 186 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
kvm-devel mailing list
kvm-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel

Re: Intel-only or AMD Opteron as well?

[Luca]

On 9/8/07, Fernando Cassia <fcassia-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> This is my first message to the list, and I've just discovered KVM... so
> please have patience with my (probably stupid and answered in some FAQ
> already ;) questions...

Yep, it's in the FAQ:
http://kvm.qumranet.com/kvmwiki/FAQ#head-089ef3cae348adfe76a2e614b3c551f811d71234
http://kvm.qumranet.com/kvmwiki/FAQ#head-a78f5f083749cb9c2e57d7d4efaf2ecf25b9db60
http://kvm.qumranet.com/kvmwiki/FAQ#head-1c0d0eb479b0cbd8cd4b2d04e3d8fbc9710ba666

> It supposedly includes AMD's virtualization features, aka "Pacifica".
> The $1M (or $0.02) question is... does KVM include any optimizations for the
> AMD virtualization extensions?

Yes, load kvm-amd.

Luca

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/

Re: Intel-only or AMD Opteron as well?

[Fernando Cassia]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2862 bytes --]

On 9/8/07, Izik Eidus <izike-atKUWr5tajBWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>
> >
> kvm have support to amd virtualization extensions., you your cpu have
> it, you should have no problem to use kvm.
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

That's great!!. The more I read about KVM the more I like it!.

Point #1:

I just wish someone had thought more about the name before selecting "KVM"
... because Sun has been using KVM (the K Virtual Machine) for its Java VM
for embedded devices for some time. This just causes confusion on web
searches...

The K Virtual Machine (KVM)
http://java.sun.com/products/cldc/wp/

In any case... choosing somthing like "Kernel-VM" instead of the KVM moniker
would have been less confusing. But hey... no big deal... but still if you
ever decide to change the name...

Point #2:
I'm very happy (yet a bit surprised) to see RedHat has simultaneously
embraced KVM for the Fedora 7 desktop, and Xen for the next RedHat
Enterprise Server.

Red Hat endorses KVM virtualization
http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-6159528.html

^ this just shows to me that Red Hat continues being the smartest Linux
vendor out there IMHO! (from the desktop selection -Gnome vs KDE- to its
support for Java (JBoss), and now to virtualization (KVM), ... unlike some
other Linux vendor out there that like to do pacts with Redmond and include
other proprietary VM technologies.... ;)

Point #3: Xen vs KVM... I'm confused

The above move by RedHat is a bit confusing... what can Xen do that KVM
cannot?. In other words, why should anyone even bother with Xen with KVM
around ??.  I've read Xen is "more robust" because it has a "one year lead"
over KVM. But really, how does this translate, if performance of Xen could
be worse due to more paravirtualization?.  Or is Xen more optimized to
provide the "greatest possible consolidation" on servers (ie less resource
usage, less impact on cpu usage of a high number of VMs?).

Finally... after reading about Xen and KVM(this KVM, not Sun's ;), I
wonder... the FAQ says Xen does more paravirtualization, whereas KVM uses
the CPU's own virtualization features. Yet I visit some articles like this
one

http://aplawrence.com/Linux/kvm_virtualization.html

which claims that Xen is "THE FASTEST" approach to virtualization. How can
it be faster since it uses paravirtualization (software) instead of direct
hardware virtualization features as KVM?
=[quote]======
Xen

http://www.xensource.com/
"Its goal is to provide very high performance. It is probably the fastest
hypervisor you can find and it achieves this through 'paravirtualization'. "
=============

Sorry again... I'm just trying to understand the "big picture"...

FC
-- 
Dream of the Daily Mail
It is the Holy Grail
And then the BBC
Your life would be complete

-Manic Street Preachers, "Royal Correspondent"

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3754 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 228 bytes --]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 186 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
kvm-devel mailing list
kvm-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel

Re: Intel-only or AMD Opteron as well?

[Luca]

On 9/8/07, Fernando Cassia <fcassia-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Point #3: Xen vs KVM... I'm confused
>
> The above move by RedHat is a bit confusing... what can Xen do that KVM
> cannot?. In other words, why should anyone even bother with Xen with KVM
> around ??.

Xen is probably more mature, and has more more management tools. Plus
it's already known and deployed in the enterprise world. On the
downside Xen is big, while KVM is simpler.

>  I've read Xen is "more robust" because it has a "one year lead"
> over KVM. But really, how does this translate, if performance of Xen could
> be worse due to more paravirtualization?.

Paravirtualization is not a bad thing ;-) If you cannot modify the
guest then of course a fully virtualized VM is needed, but if you can
modify it (by e.g. loading a special driver) then PV is likely to give
some speed enhancements.
The first obvious area for PV is device drivers: emulating a network
card (or a disk controller, or...) wastes a lot of cycles, it makes
lots of sense to use a special driver virtualization-aware driver that
speeds up the communication between the guest and the host. VirtIO for
example is all about flipping pages between guest and host.
Another class of operations the can be PVirtualized are privileged
instructions that may affect the global state of the machine. E.g. you
don't want the guest to be able to _really_ turn interrupts off;
instead you trap the 'cli' and stop sending interrupts to it. If the
guest is aware of the virtualization it can politely ask the guest to
stop interrupt delivery (instead of going through trap+emulate). ATM
Linux supports the paravirt_ops infrastructure that covers interrupts
delivery, page table / MMU management, APIC, MSR (and maybe other
stuff). This second class of PV ops requires modification of core
parts of the guest operating system; while it's certainly possible to
create a win32 driver for e.g. a PV network card it's impossible to do
the same for paravirt_ops.

> Or is Xen more optimized to
> provide the "greatest possible consolidation" on servers (ie less resource
> usage, less impact on cpu usage of a high number of VMs?).

Xen supported paravirt-only guest, but gained support for full
virtualization. KVM started as full virtualization solution but is now
gaining PV support (at least for network and block devices - I think
kvm-lite will go further).

>  Finally... after reading about Xen and KVM(this KVM, not Sun's ;), I
> wonder... the FAQ says Xen does more paravirtualization, whereas KVM uses
> the CPU's own virtualization features. Yet I visit some articles like this
> one
>
> http://aplawrence.com/Linux/kvm_virtualization.html
>
>  which claims that Xen is "THE FASTEST" approach to virtualization. How can
> it be faster since it uses paravirtualization (software) instead of direct
> hardware virtualization features as KVM?

See above. Doing software _emulation_ of the guest is slow. A PV guest
can coordinate very efficiently with the host.

Luca

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/

Re: Intel-only or AMD Opteron as well?

[Anthony Liguori]

On Sat, 2007-09-08 at 19:01 +0200, Luca wrote:
> On 9/8/07, Fernando Cassia <fcassia-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > Point #3: Xen vs KVM... I'm confused
> >
> > The above move by RedHat is a bit confusing... what can Xen do that KVM
> > cannot?. In other words, why should anyone even bother with Xen with KVM
> > around ??.
> 
> Xen is probably more mature, and has more more management tools. Plus
> it's already known and deployed in the enterprise world. On the
> downside Xen is big, while KVM is simpler.

Keep in mind, the referenced article is very old (it's from February).

> >  I've read Xen is "more robust" because it has a "one year lead"
> > over KVM. But really, how does this translate, if performance of Xen could
> > be worse due to more paravirtualization?.
> 
> Paravirtualization is not a bad thing ;-) If you cannot modify the
> guest then of course a fully virtualized VM is needed, but if you can
> modify it (by e.g. loading a special driver) then PV is likely to give
> some speed enhancements.
> The first obvious area for PV is device drivers: emulating a network
> card (or a disk controller, or...) wastes a lot of cycles, it makes
> lots of sense to use a special driver virtualization-aware driver that
> speeds up the communication between the guest and the host. VirtIO for
> example is all about flipping pages between guest and host.
> Another class of operations the can be PVirtualized are privileged
> instructions that may affect the global state of the machine. E.g. you
> don't want the guest to be able to _really_ turn interrupts off;
> instead you trap the 'cli' and stop sending interrupts to it. If the
> guest is aware of the virtualization it can politely ask the guest to
> stop interrupt delivery (instead of going through trap+emulate).

One thing to keep in mind is that in this example, hardware
virtualization eliminates the need to trap and emulate cli/sti.

In general, there are two classes of paravirtualizations. The first are
related to functionality on non-virtualization aware hardware (32-bit
startup, cooperative descriptor table management, memory hole, etc.).
The second class would be optimizations which includes things like page
table update batching, paravirtual device drivers, etc.

KVM is beginning to get the second class of optimizations.  Once they
are in place and mature, my expectation is that it will outperform
things like Xen.  Hardware virtualization is probably a lot faster than
something that relies on only the first class of paravirtualizations. 

> >  Finally... after reading about Xen and KVM(this KVM, not Sun's ;), I
> > wonder... the FAQ says Xen does more paravirtualization, whereas KVM uses
> > the CPU's own virtualization features. Yet I visit some articles like this
> > one
> >
> > http://aplawrence.com/Linux/kvm_virtualization.html
> >
> >  which claims that Xen is "THE FASTEST" approach to virtualization. How can
> > it be faster since it uses paravirtualization (software) instead of direct
> > hardware virtualization features as KVM?
> 
> See above. Doing software _emulation_ of the guest is slow. A PV guest
> can coordinate very efficiently with the host.

Well, it's not really that simple.  There are some things Xen is very
slow at (especially with 64-bit guests).

The best thing to do when trying to decide which virtualization solution
to use is to evaluate all options for the workloads you're interested
in.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> Luca
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> _______________________________________________
> kvm-devel mailing list
> kvm-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/

Re: Intel-only or AMD Opteron as well?

[Matej Cepl]

On 2007-09-08, 14:59 GMT, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> The above move by RedHat is a bit confusing... what can Xen do 
> that KVM cannot?. In other words, why should anyone even bother 
> with Xen with KVM around ??.  I've read Xen is "more robust" 
> because it has a "one year lead" over KVM. But really, how does 
> this translate, if performance of Xen could be worse due to 
> more paravirtualization?.  Or is Xen more optimized to
> provide the "greatest possible consolidation" on servers (ie 
> less resource usage, less impact on cpu usage of a high number 
> of VMs?).

(notwithstanding the domain of my email address, I am not part of 
the kernel/VM RH team,  I am not developer or even programmer, 
and this is just my personal thinking not anything close to 
official position of Red Hat).

a) Concerning maturity -- remember, RHEL 5 was created on the 
   basis of Fedora Core 6, which was released in the fall 2006.
   In that moment, there was no KVM around. And you don't put 
   technology which is not enough old into product which you are
   supposed to support for the next seven years. It is almost one
   year later and KVM is still in the stage of rapid development
   and substantial changes (IMHO and I think it is a good for all 
   of us -- eagerly waiting for KVM host suspend/resume in
   2.6.23).  Again, you don't put such stuff into enteprise grade
   distribution.
b) Concerning paravirtualization, I think you have it other way
   around -- given the fact that both host and guest know about
   virtualization, they can modify their behavior accordingly and
   work better than with full virtualization, when guest knows
   nothing. It is said that the disadvantage of fullvirt is
   slightly smaller with hardware accelerated virtualization
   (which is what KVM does), but again I know nothing about this.
c) One thing which is very important to consider is libvirt.  
   I think that is really smart move from Red Hat. Remember,
   all interesting tools for doing virtualization (virt-manager,
   virsh, virt-viewer, etc.) in Red Hat distributions are based
   on libvirt and so they agnostic vis-a-vis particular
   implementation of virtualization. So our users can learn about
   virtualization as such with Xen, and when some other
   technology (e.g., kvm, but who knows what will happen in seven
   years and whether some even better technology won't arise?) is
   good enough to be included into RHEL (for example, that
   actually missing paravirtualization is one of the biggest
   problems of kvm) or if something nasty happens to Xen, we can 
   just switch the virtualization backend and everything will
   work for our users as before.  Again, I think this is the way 
   how to do a seven-years-supported distribution.

Just my 0.02 CZK.

Matěj

-- 
http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/blog/, Jabber: ceplma<at>jabber.cz
GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB  25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC
 
A bird in the hand makes it awfully hard to blow your nose.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
kvm-devel mailing list
kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel

Re: Intel-only or AMD Opteron as well?

[Izik Eidus]

Farkas Levente wrote:
> On Vas, Szeptember 9, 2007 09:48, Avi Kivity wrote:
>   
>> kvm is too new to have been included in RHEL 5.  The enterprise distros
>> have a long lead time where the technology is tested and fixed, they
>> don't pick the latest kernel off kernel.org and ship it the next day.  I
>> think RHEL 5 is based on 2.6.18, whereas kvm was first merged in 2.6.20
>> and gained guest smp support in 2.6.23.
>>     
>
> does this means if i compile the latest kvm as a module for rhel5's 2.6.18
> kernel it won't support guest smp? anyway the whole kernel and kvm
> versioning and what is required for whicv version is not clear and should
> have to be documented! it's a faq for all new kvm users!
>
>   
no, if you will compile the latest kvm as module to 2.6.18 you will have 
smp support.
(it might be slower than in 2.6.23)
>> Xen can also run virtual machines on older processors, but this is
>> changing with kvm-lite.
>>     
>
> is there any info about kvm-lite? is there any docs where can i donwload
> and test etc?
>
>   


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/

Re: Intel-only or AMD Opteron as well?

[Avi Kivity]

Fernando Cassia wrote:
>
>
> Point #1:
>
> I just wish someone had thought more about the name before selecting 
> "KVM" ... because Sun has been using KVM (the K Virtual Machine) for 
> its Java VM for embedded devices for some time. This just causes 
> confusion on web searches...
>
> The K Virtual Machine (KVM)
> http://java.sun.com/products/cldc/wp/
>
> In any case... choosing somthing like "Kernel-VM" instead of the KVM 
> moniker would have been less confusing. But hey... no big deal... but 
> still if you ever decide to change the name...
>

Hey, don't rub it in.  In any case the name can't be changed now, we 
have to live with it.

>
> Point #3: Xen vs KVM... I'm confused
>
> The above move by RedHat is a bit confusing... what can Xen do that 
> KVM cannot?. In other words, why should anyone even bother with Xen 
> with KVM around ??.  I've read Xen is "more robust" because it has a 
> "one year lead" over KVM. But really, how does this translate, if 
> performance of Xen could be worse due to more paravirtualization?.  Or 
> is Xen more optimized to provide the "greatest possible consolidation" 
> on servers (ie less resource usage, less impact on cpu usage of a high 
> number of VMs?).

kvm is too new to have been included in RHEL 5.  The enterprise distros 
have a long lead time where the technology is tested and fixed, they 
don't pick the latest kernel off kernel.org and ship it the next day.  I 
think RHEL 5 is based on 2.6.18, whereas kvm was first merged in 2.6.20 
and gained guest smp support in 2.6.23.

Xen can also run virtual machines on older processors, but this is 
changing with kvm-lite.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/

Re: Intel-only or AMD Opteron as well?

[Farkas Levente]

On Vas, Szeptember 9, 2007 09:48, Avi Kivity wrote:
> kvm is too new to have been included in RHEL 5.  The enterprise distros
> have a long lead time where the technology is tested and fixed, they
> don't pick the latest kernel off kernel.org and ship it the next day.  I
> think RHEL 5 is based on 2.6.18, whereas kvm was first merged in 2.6.20
> and gained guest smp support in 2.6.23.

does this means if i compile the latest kvm as a module for rhel5's 2.6.18
kernel it won't support guest smp? anyway the whole kernel and kvm
versioning and what is required for whicv version is not clear and should
have to be documented! it's a faq for all new kvm users!

> Xen can also run virtual machines on older processors, but this is
> changing with kvm-lite.

is there any info about kvm-lite? is there any docs where can i donwload
and test etc?

-- 


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/

Re: Intel-only or AMD Opteron as well?

[Fernando Cassia]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1477 bytes --]

On 9/9/07, Avi Kivity <avi-atKUWr5tajBWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> Hey, don't rub it in.  In any case the name can't be changed now, we
> have to live with it.


I just hope this is not one of those "we're not changing it, let THEM change
it!" kind of arguments. :)

Software names change all the time... remember before Firefox how it was
initially called "Firebird" ?
And SeaMonkey, the new browser-email suite formerly known as "Mozilla" ?
...or "Windows Mail" the product formerly known as "Outlook Express"?
..and  Adobe Reader, the product formerly known as "Acrobat Reader"...

After all, you don't have to RADICALLY change the name... in fact I think
"Kernel VM" or Kernel-VM not only avoids this confusion, but also describes
the product better.

I should also note that for the end users, "KVM" reminds them of
Keyboard-Video-Mouse switches....
if you do a Google web search now (English language) you get "KVM Switch"
first, and "KVM" (this project) as the second hit.
BUT if you repeat the google search in another language (case in point:
Spanish), the results are completely different and while this KVM project is
also the second result, the rest of the results in the first page are KVM
switches...
http://www.google.com.ar/search?hl=es&q=kvm&btnG=Buscar&meta=

In any case... I'm not trying to force any change... just thinking aloud.
Take this as food for thought. :)

And thanks for the rest of your replies, which were really enlightening...

FC

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2091 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 228 bytes --]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 186 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
kvm-devel mailing list
kvm-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel

Re: Intel-only or AMD Opteron as well?

[Farkas Levente]

Avi Kivity wrote:
> Fernando Cassia wrote:
>>
>> Point #1:
>>
>> I just wish someone had thought more about the name before selecting 
>> "KVM" ... because Sun has been using KVM (the K Virtual Machine) for 
>> its Java VM for embedded devices for some time. This just causes 
>> confusion on web searches...
>>
>> The K Virtual Machine (KVM)
>> http://java.sun.com/products/cldc/wp/
>>
>> In any case... choosing somthing like "Kernel-VM" instead of the KVM 
>> moniker would have been less confusing. But hey... no big deal... but 
>> still if you ever decide to change the name...
>>
> 
> Hey, don't rub it in.  In any case the name can't be changed now, we 
> have to live with it.

anyway it's true, that this name is one of the worst choice:-(

-- 
  Levente                               "Si vis pacem para bellum!"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/