Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #210497 > unrolled thread

Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2019-06-30 14:40 +0200
    Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? Matthew Crews <mailinglists@mattcrews.com> - 2019-06-30 15:50 +0200
      Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? john doe <johndoe65534@mail.com> - 2019-06-30 17:10 +0200
      Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? Linux-Fan <Ma_Sys.ma@web.de> - 2019-06-30 17:50 +0200
        Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2019-06-30 21:20 +0200
          Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2019-07-01 00:50 +0200
          Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2019-07-01 01:00 +0200
          Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? Matthew Crews <mailinglists@mattcrews.com> - 2019-07-01 19:20 +0200
            Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-07-01 19:40 +0200
              Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? Matthew Crews <mailinglists@mattcrews.com> - 2019-07-01 21:20 +0200
                Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-07-01 22:10 +0200
          Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? Linux-Fan <Ma_Sys.ma@web.de> - 2019-07-01 20:50 +0200
            Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2019-07-02 13:40 +0200
              Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-07-02 14:10 +0200
                Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? Kenneth Parker <sea7kenp@gmail.com> - 2019-07-02 17:20 +0200
                  Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2019-07-02 17:30 +0200
                    Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2019-07-02 17:40 +0200
                      Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? Matthew Crews <mailinglists@mattcrews.com> - 2019-07-02 19:50 +0200
                      Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? Matthew Crews <mailinglists@mattcrews.com> - 2019-07-02 19:50 +0200
                      Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? Matthew Crews <mattcrews@mattcrews.com> - 2019-07-02 20:00 +0200
                Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? Andy Smith <andy@bitfolk.com> - 2019-07-02 23:00 +0200
                  Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? Matthew Crews <mailinglists@mattcrews.com> - 2019-07-03 05:10 +0200
                    Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-07-03 08:30 +0200
                      Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-07-03 10:20 +0200
                        Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-07-03 12:00 +0200
                    Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2019-07-03 14:40 +0200
                    Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2019-07-03 19:30 +0200
                      Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2019-07-03 19:50 +0200
                        Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2019-07-03 20:10 +0200
                          Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2019-07-03 20:20 +0200
                            Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2019-07-04 17:30 +0200
                              Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2019-07-04 19:10 +0200
                                Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-07-04 20:00 +0200
                                  Attributing (was: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch?) Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2019-07-06 17:20 +0200
                                    Re: Attributing (was: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch?) Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-07-06 18:10 +0200
                                      Re: Attributing Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2019-07-06 18:30 +0200
                                        Re: Attributing Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> - 2019-07-06 21:00 +0200
                                    Re: Attributing (was: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch?) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-07-06 18:30 +0200
                      Oldest Usable x86 CPU for Stretch (Was: Choice of VMs under i386  Stretch?) Matthew Crews <mailinglists@mattcrews.com> - 2019-07-04 01:50 +0200
                        Re: Oldest Usable x86 CPU for Stretch (Was: Choice of VMs under i386  Stretch?) andreimpopescu@gmail.com - 2019-07-04 08:40 +0200
              Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? Matthew Crews <mailinglists@mattcrews.com> - 2019-07-02 15:10 +0200
                Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? Matthew Crews <mailinglists@mattcrews.com> - 2019-07-02 15:20 +0200
              Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? Linux-Fan <Ma_Sys.ma@web.de> - 2019-07-02 23:10 +0200
                Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2019-07-04 16:00 +0200
                  Old computers (Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch?) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2019-07-04 16:40 +0200
                  Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? Nate Bargmann <n0nb@n0nb.us> - 2019-07-04 17:10 +0200
                  Re: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch? Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2019-07-06 12:50 +0200

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#210619

Hello Curt and Matthew,

On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 12:04:36PM -0000, Curt wrote:
> On 2019-07-02, Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> wrote:
> >
> > A restatement of my question might be:

[…]

> What do we win if we provide the correct answer? A year's supply of
> invective?

I do feel sorry for you Matthew. You have been enticed into spending
considerable time giving a thorough answer in an Owlett thread.
Unfortunately Owlett threads are either an ongoing Internet
performance art project or a result of severe mental illness (why
not both!?), not sincere requests for help.

Now, which one of you is going to tell him that running virtual
machines is a bit of a stretch on a 32-bit host?

Better luck next time! :)

Cheers,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#210630

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 7/2/19 1:20 PM, Andy Smith wrote:
> I do feel sorry for you Matthew. You have been enticed into spending
> considerable time giving a thorough answer in an Owlett thread.
> Unfortunately Owlett threads are either an ongoing Internet
> performance art project or a result of severe mental illness (why
> not both!?), not sincere requests for help.

I have an innate desire to help people, but more importantly I give
people the benefit of the doubt. Besides I self-taught myself a few
things along the way, so I consider it a win.

I have no idea what an Owlett thread is, other than it sounds like a
Pokémon or one of the characters from the cartoon PJ Masks. Or is it
just another name for good old fashioned trolling?

> Now, which one of you is going to tell him that running virtual
> machines is a bit of a stretch on a 32-bit host?
> 
> Better luck next time! :)

I'm not going to discount that someone has a perfectly good reason for
wanting to do this, even if it is for academic purposes. Granted, I
think in this day and age it is a bit silly to try and run a VM on a
32-bit host (or for that matter, run a 32-bit host at all if your
hardware supports 64-bit, but that is another topic).

That said I do not believe that any existing i386 32-bit-only hardware
that is still floating around even supports the virtual machine
extensions necessary to run a true VM host. Containers like Docker?
Sure, those should still work, but I'm not an expert in the subject.

-Matt

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#210632

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 05:01:11AM +0200, Matthew Crews wrote:
> On 7/2/19 1:20 PM, Andy Smith wrote:
> > I do feel sorry for you Matthew. You have been enticed into spending
> > considerable time giving a thorough answer in an Owlett thread.
> > Unfortunately Owlett threads are either an ongoing Internet
> > performance art project or a result of severe mental illness (why
> > not both!?), not sincere requests for help.

While this may soundsomewhat funny, it is pretty unfriendly: you
never know how cranky others might find *you* -- so better hope
for some slack in your favour :-)

> I have an innate desire to help people, but more importantly I give
> people the benefit of the doubt. Besides I self-taught myself a few
> things along the way, so I consider it a win.

I prefer that one, too :)

Cheers
-- t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#210636

On 2019-07-03, <tomas@tuxteam.de> <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:
>
>> I have an innate desire to help people, but more importantly I give
>> people the benefit of the doubt. Besides I self-taught myself a few
>> things along the way, so I consider it a win.
>
> I prefer that one, too :)

People get the benefit of the doubt until they remove all doubt, at
which point your easy altruism reverses itself into a kind of pandering
to the selfishness you pretend to decry. 

> Cheers

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#210638

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 08:17:22AM -0000, Curt wrote:
> On 2019-07-03, <tomas@tuxteam.de> <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:
> >
> >> I have an innate desire to help people, but more importantly I give
> >> people the benefit of the doubt. Besides I self-taught myself a few
> >> things along the way, so I consider it a win.
> >
> > I prefer that one, too :)
> 
> People get the benefit of the doubt until they remove all doubt, at
> which point your easy altruism reverses itself into a kind of pandering
> to the selfishness you pretend to decry. 

Let's agree to differ, then.

Cheers
-- t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#210652

On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 05:01:11AM +0200, Matthew Crews wrote:
> I have no idea what an Owlett thread is,

It's what you're seeing right now.

It's also the reason I end up writing a filtering program to send all
email from certain From: addresses into a spam folder.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#210688

> I have an innate desire to help people, but more importantly I give
> people the benefit of the doubt. Besides I self-taught myself a few
> things along the way, so I consider it a win.

Yes, please (and please remind me of that as well when I fail to follow
it ;-)

>> Now, which one of you is going to tell him that running virtual
>> machines is a bit of a stretch on a 32-bit host?

Huh?  The only systems on which I have ever run virtual machines were
all 32bit Debian systems.  Now admittedly, I tend to count LXC as a VM,
so maybe this is imprecise, but even w.r.t actual VMs they've all
been 32bit.

> think in this day and age it is a bit silly to try and run a VM on a
> 32-bit host

Why?  Often the question is not "which hardware should I pick to run
this VM" but "what kinds of technology should I use to run this software
on this hardware".  When "this hardware" is 32bit, and a VM is needed
between the two, then that's that.

What might be silly is to think that this choice can't be the best one.

> (or for that matter, run a 32-bit host at all if your
> hardware supports 64-bit,

That's what I do on half of my machines, yes (the other half is a mix
of 32bit-only and 64bit-only systems).

> That said I do not believe that any existing i386 32-bit-only hardware
> that is still floating around even supports the virtual machine
> extensions necessary to run a true VM host.

I haven't use qemu on my 32bit only i686 machines recently, but I see no
reason why it wouldn't work any more.

> Containers like Docker?  Sure, those should still work,

Of course they do.  Just like `chroot` (of which they're basically an
extension) they require no special hardware support of any kind.


        Stefan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#210690

On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 01:20:06PM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> think in this day and age it is a bit silly to try and run a VM on a
>> 32-bit host
>
>Why?  Often the question is not "which hardware should I pick to run
>this VM" but "what kinds of technology should I use to run this software
>on this hardware".  When "this hardware" is 32bit, and a VM is needed
>between the two, then that's that.

Because the hardware features to permit efficient virtualization weren't 
available on i386-only CPUs. (And there's really no good reason to run a 
VM host [vs guest] in i386 mode if it can run in amd64 mode.)

>> That said I do not believe that any existing i386 32-bit-only hardware
>> that is still floating around even supports the virtual machine
>> extensions necessary to run a true VM host.
>
>I haven't use qemu on my 32bit only i686 machines recently, but I see no
>reason why it wouldn't work any more.

It's certainly possible to run software-only virtualization on an 
ancient CPU, but at that point (since it would clearly just be to
scratch an itch, not for any practical reason) why ask for opinions 
instead of just playing around if playing around is the only goal?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#210691

> Because the hardware features to permit efficient virtualization weren't
> available on i386-only CPUs. (And there's really no good reason to run a VM
> host [vs guest] in i386 mode if it can run in amd64 mode.)

By "there's really no good ..." I think you mean "I can't think of any
good ...".

For reference, here's the reason why I did it last time: I needed to
update the small Debian install I have on my USB rescue key.  I had
a few choices:
- boot inside a qemu on my 32bit Debian system.
- reboot my system into the rescue key (hence losing the current state
  of my session and all that stuff and being unable to use my machine
  for anything else while that rescue system was updating itself).
- do the same but hoping that hibernate+resume will work, so while
  I still can't use the machine during the upgrade, at least maybe
  I didn't lose all my session's state (tho resume often fails, in my
  experience).
- start by reinstall Debian using a 64bit system this time, just on the
  hunch that maybe it'll be marginally faster at running the upgrade
  within the VM (tho this is normally limited mostly by the USB key
  write speed).

Now, which of those choices sounds more silly to you?

In my experience VMs running in a 32bit Debian system on a Core
2 processor (i.e. one of the first amd64-compatible CPU from Intel)
offer adequate performance.  I probably wouldn't use that for a server
under any real load, but VMs can be useful in all kinds of situations.

> It's certainly possible to run software-only virtualization on an
> ancient CPU, but at that point (since it would clearly just be to
> scratch an itch, not for any practical reason) why ask for opinions
> instead of just playing around if playing around is the only goal?

I get the impression that by "if playing around is the only goal" you
mean something like "if it's not within the context of a commercial
deployment".  Sometimes the need is very real (not just for playing
around) but doesn't have anything to do with maximizing hardware
utilization in a datacenter.


        Stefan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#210692

On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 02:05:05PM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>- start by reinstall Debian using a 64bit system this time

If it had been done 10 years ago it wouldn't need to be done now. :) If 
you just don't want to bother that's fine, but not great advice for 
anyone starting out.

>In my experience VMs running in a 32bit Debian system on a Core
>2 processor (i.e. one of the first amd64-compatible CPU from Intel)
>offer adequate performance.  I probably wouldn't use that for a server
>under any real load, but VMs can be useful in all kinds of situations.

VMs running on a core 2 definitely have unfixable security issues and 
aren't great performers. That certainly limits the use cases.

>> It's certainly possible to run software-only virtualization on an
>> ancient CPU, but at that point (since it would clearly just be to
>> scratch an itch, not for any practical reason) why ask for opinions
>> instead of just playing around if playing around is the only goal?
>
>I get the impression that by "if playing around is the only goal" you
>mean something like "if it's not within the context of a commercial
>deployment".  Sometimes the need is very real (not just for playing
>around) but doesn't have anything to do with maximizing hardware
>utilization in a datacenter.

Since faster and more efficient hardware can literally be found for free 
these days, running on something that old has a strong component of 
personal choice. Which is fine, but not a strong argument. Put a 
different way, it's fine if that's what you want to do, but terrible 
advice for others. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#210719

> If it had been done 10 years ago it wouldn't need to be done now. :)

[ The initial install was in 2003, FWIW.  ]
I do use 64bit Debian on another machine, but to tell you the truth,
I don't notice any difference at all (other than bigger hex numbers in
GDB which take up more screen real estate and are harder to
remember/decipher ;-), so there's a serious lack of motivation.

> VMs running on a core 2 definitely have unfixable security issues and aren't
> great performers.  That certainly limits the use cases.

AFAIK all CPUs since also have unfixable security issues (spectre).
So I'm not sure it makes much difference.
In any case, my point is that often it's best to use what you have
rather than what is "best".

> Since faster and more efficient hardware can literally be found for free

Regarding faster: my laptop is a Thinkpad T61 with a hand-upgraded Core
2 CPU, and the reason I'm using that is that it's the best 4/3 laptop
I could find.
All the more recent models use short screens and hence don't qualify.

It does deserve to be upgraded, and I'm willing to spend a fair bit of
money for that, but so far noone has decided to re-enter the 4/3
marketplace AFAIK (the "thinkpad" T70 has been the only exception I know
of, but it was very short run).

As for efficiency, AFAIK the production of a laptop takes more
energy than all the electricity it uses in its lifetime, so using my old
laptop is arguably more efficient.

> these days, running on something that old has a strong component of personal
> choice.

Just like choosing something more recent is a personal choice, yes.
With global ecological implications.

> Which is fine, but not a strong argument. Put a different way, it's
> fine if that's what you want to do, but terrible advice for others.

I didn't advise it.  I only pointed out that running a VM in a 32bit
system is not silly at all.


        Stefan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#210724

On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 11:26:39AM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> If it had been done 10 years ago it wouldn't need to be done now. :)

(General observation: it's really quite annoying that you remove all 
attribution when you quote previous emails in your replies.)

>> VMs running on a core 2 definitely have unfixable security issues and aren't
>> great performers.  That certainly limits the use cases.
>
>AFAIK all CPUs since also have unfixable security issues (spectre).
>So I'm not sure it makes much difference.

That's not true, but I really don't want to start another thread against 
CPU FUD so I'll leave it at that.

>As for efficiency, AFAIK the production of a laptop takes more
>energy than all the electricity it uses in its lifetime, so using my old
>laptop is arguably more efficient.

That's a bogus argument when applied to secondhand hardware. When 
comparing two pieces of used hardware and effectively deciding which one 
gets thrown away, there's no particular virtue in choosing the older 
(probably less power efficient) one.

>I only pointed out that running a VM in a 32bit system is not silly at all.

Humans do a lot of things that are objectively silly for their own 
amusement.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#210728

On 2019-07-04, Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 11:26:39AM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>> If it had been done 10 years ago it wouldn't need to be done now. :)
>
> (General observation: it's really quite annoying that you remove all 
> attribution when you quote previous emails in your replies.)
>

It really is very annoying, primarily because it's intentional, and so
intentionally annoying, which is really, really annoying.

-- 
"These findings demonstrate that under appropriate conditions the isolated,
intact large mammalian brain possesses an underappreciated capacity for
restoration of microcirculation and molecular and cellular activity after a
prolonged post-mortem interval." in Nature. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#210842 — Attributing (was: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch?)

>> (General observation: it's really quite annoying that you remove all 
>> attribution when you quote previous emails in your replies.)
> It really is very annoying, primarily because it's intentional, and so
> intentionally annoying, which is really, really annoying.

Interesting.  I never read attributions so find them useless, and most
of the time my intention is to reply to the particular chunk of text
that I quote regardless of who wrote it.  Furthermore in the rare cases
where it's important to know who wrote it, it should be trivial to
lookup the parents in the thread.
[ I do find myself having to look at the parents in a thread fairly
  often, tho not to figure out who wrote it but in order to get more
  context to better understand what was meant.  ]


        Stefan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#210846 — Re: Attributing (was: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch?)

On 2019-07-06, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
>>> (General observation: it's really quite annoying that you remove all 
>>> attribution when you quote previous emails in your replies.)
>> It really is very annoying, primarily because it's intentional, and so
>> intentionally annoying, which is really, really annoying.
>
> Interesting.  I never read attributions so find them useless, and most

It has nothing to do with you finding them useless or not and everything
to do with everybody else reading you, to whom you should show a minimum
of consideration.

https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMailingLists

 Attribute quotes accurately.

You've been told this before, BTW, at least once (it's in the archives) as
you appear to be expressing an element of "surprise" or something.


-- 
"These findings demonstrate that under appropriate conditions the isolated,
intact large mammalian brain possesses an underappreciated capacity for
restoration of microcirculation and molecular and cellular activity after a
prolonged post-mortem interval." From a recent article in *Nature*. Holy shit. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#210848 — Re: Attributing

>  Attribute quotes accurately.

Oh, right, another reason why I prefer not to put attributions is to
make sure they're not inaccurate.

> You've been told this before, BTW, at least once (it's in the archives) as
> you appear to be expressing an element of "surprise" or something.

Yes, I've often seen people complain about incorrect attributions, but
much less about missing attributions.


        Stefan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#210849 — Re: Attributing

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Stefan Monnier [2019-07-06T12:29:18-04:00] wrote:

>>  Attribute quotes accurately.
>
> Oh, right, another reason why I prefer not to put attributions is to
> make sure they're not inaccurate.
>
>> You've been told this before, BTW, at least once (it's in the
>> archives) as you appear to be expressing an element of "surprise" or
>> something.
>
> Yes, I've often seen people complain about incorrect attributions, but
> much less about missing attributions.

Please:

(setq message-citation-line-function 'message-insert-formatted-citation-line)
(setq message-citation-line-format "%N [%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S %z] wrote:\n")

-- 
///  OpenPGP key: 4E1055DC84E9DFF613D78557719D69D324539450
//  https://keys.openpgp.org/search?q=tlikonen@iki.fi
/  https://keybase.io/tlikonen  https://github.com/tlikonen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#210847 — Re: Attributing (was: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch?)

On Sat 06 Jul 2019 at 11:16:19 (-0400), Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> (General observation: it's really quite annoying that you remove all 
> >> attribution when you quote previous emails in your replies.)
> > It really is very annoying, primarily because it's intentional, and so
> > intentionally annoying, which is really, really annoying.
> 
> Interesting.  I never read attributions so find them useless, and most
> of the time my intention is to reply to the particular chunk of text
> that I quote regardless of who wrote it.  Furthermore in the rare cases
> where it's important to know who wrote it, it should be trivial to
> lookup the parents in the thread.
> [ I do find myself having to look at the parents in a thread fairly
>   often, tho not to figure out who wrote it but in order to get more
>   context to better understand what was meant.  ]

If you're reading this list from emails, and are trying to keep
mailboxes at a reasonable size, then it might *not* be trivial to
look up the thread. And that's the basis of netiquette: thinking
of other people in the group.

Hence, we don't top-post, try to quote sensibly sized extracts,
respect quoting syntax conventions, and avoid breaking the
Message-ID threading where possible, and so on.

In a technical list like this, attributions help greatly in weighing the
words of the contributions. Over a period, people build up a picture
of the various contributors' expertise. (Sorry, but I have none.)

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#210694 — Oldest Usable x86 CPU for Stretch (Was: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch?)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 7/3/19 10:20 AM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> That said I do not believe that any existing i386 32-bit-only hardware
>> that is still floating around even supports the virtual machine
>> extensions necessary to run a true VM host.
> 
> I haven't use qemu on my 32bit only i686 machines recently, but I see no
> reason why it wouldn't work any more.

You know, this got me thinking. What *is* the oldest 32-bit x86 CPU that
we can use in Stretch for a VM host? And assuming we are talking
out-of-the-box experience, ie I download a standard ISO and fire it up.

And to be honest, I don't know. Debian seems to support as old as the
Pentium Pro, but I'm not sure what compiler flags that we use, ie what
CPU extensions are required. I remember a couple of years ago I had to
dig up a very old version of Puppy Linux (with a very old Kernel
version) to run an AMD K6-2 laptop because of missing CPU extensions. So
I'm wondering if the kernel that ships with Debian is the same.

Any ideas?

Note: I don't care about the practicality of this.

-Matt

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#210702 — Re: Oldest Usable x86 CPU for Stretch (Was: Choice of VMs under i386 Stretch?)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Jo, 04 iul 19, 01:47:58, Matthew Crews wrote:
> 
> You know, this got me thinking. What *is* the oldest 32-bit x86 CPU that
> we can use in Stretch for a VM host? And assuming we are talking
> out-of-the-box experience, ie I download a standard ISO and fire it up.

This might get you started:
https://www.debian.org/releases/stretch/i386/release-notes/ch-information.en.html#i386-is-now-almost-i686

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web