From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:59488)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1TOTy2-0006ts-63
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 09:47:31 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1TOTxt-0004QA-B0
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 09:47:26 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:4416)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1TOTxt-0004Pu-2b
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 09:47:17 -0400
Message-ID: <507EB6E2.6040401@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:47:14 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <k5e5ho$7b2$1@ger.gmane.org> <507BC355.2010006@redhat.com>
	<CAPbWNKEaTCO05KTecUitC=QicZ1n7wkuL_fo9jYid=A6z7eSPA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPbWNKEaTCO05KTecUitC=QicZ1n7wkuL_fo9jYid=A6z7eSPA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Any alternative to kqemu ?
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Timothy Madden <terminatorul@gmail.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Il 17/10/2012 15:39, Timothy Madden ha scritto:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Il 14/10/2012 12:52, Timothy Madden ha scritto:
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> Is kqemu deprecated ?
>>
>> It is simply not supported anymore.
>>
>>> Is there an alternative to it ?
>>
>> No.
> 
> That is tough ... ! So my hardware is officially obsolete.

That is not because of obsoletion of hardware.  It's because kqemu was
holding off other enhancements to QEMU, and nobody stepped up to
maintain it.

> I had to get away with those other emulators provided by commercial
> companies. VMWare said my hardware does not support virtualization
> (much like qemu), but VirtualBox worked surprisingly well and uses the
> CPU natively (no emulation, faster than my qemu without kvm).

Yes, qemu without kvm can be quite slow because of the overhead of CPU
emulation.  One problem is that newer distros use SSE a lot, and this is
quite slow.

Paolo