From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DWSHT-0003sM-Hs for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 13 May 2005 01:00:11 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DWSHN-0003qB-9d for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 13 May 2005 01:00:05 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DWSHN-0003kc-2x for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 13 May 2005 01:00:05 -0400 Received: from [199.232.41.67] (helo=mx20.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLS-1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA:16) (Exim 4.34) id 1DWSKm-0007tf-Sm for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 13 May 2005 01:03:36 -0400 Received: from [209.55.3.82] (helo=mxo2.broadbandsupport.net) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DWS8G-0004bC-D2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 13 May 2005 00:50:40 -0400 Received: from organiza3bfb0e (unknown [209.33.77.51]) by mxo2.broadbandsupport.net (Postfix) with SMTP id B5C139A2F0 for ; Thu, 12 May 2005 00:52:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000e01c55777$48a9f5f0$334d21d1@organiza3bfb0e> From: References: <20050513041633.GA6576@hugang.soulinfo.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] We want to example qemu and the accel-module in ourdistribution. Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 23:50:08 -0500 Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org >Why not choose QEMU + QVM86, The QVM86 do same thing with accelerator >module, but it is Open Source Project. Because at the moment, qvm86 doesn't work well. Still has bugs and limitations. And it actually seems to be *slower* than qemu without it. Or at least not much faster. That's based on the only Windows cvs build that had qvm86 with it. (Still available from the club-internet.fr Win daily build mirror.) I assume the linux build behaves the same, since it is based on the same core routines and techniques. That seems to be the impression I get from the qemu users forum, anyway. I'm sure it could be significantly improved, but at the moment there are only a couple people working occasionally on it. So it's not something you can depend on being vastly improved on in the next few weeks. (To be honest, I suspect that the qvm86 techniques didn't work as well as the author originally expected / hoped. Just my feeling.)