[SGVLUG] 'x86 boxes with hardware virtualization

[John E. Kreznar]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In a posting purporting to be from Eric Theis <erictheis at yahoo.com>
but lacking a digital signature, it is written:

> On Saturday 09 May 2009 11:10:29 pm matti wrote:

>> > Have 'x86 boxes with hardware virtualization begun to be numerous
>> > on the used computer market?

>> in terms of systems w/chips which has "Hardware support", yes they
>> are quite a few out there in the used market place.

>> so YES you will be able to find used systems which support
>> it. (especially as some companies get dismantled during this down
>> turn, expect to see a few newer systems recycled.. )

>> however, there still are LOTs of non-supporting chips ( even some
>> of the newer intel core2 chips don't have the hardware
>> support.. many of those chips are still being put into new
>> systems.)

>> THUS, I would expect you will need to consult the listings.

>> I took a closer look at the list and was surprised that some of the
>> Intel Quad processors aren't even "VT-x", sigh, so you will
>> definitely have to look closely at what chip is in the system.

>> > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_virtualization

> Saw a thread a couple days ago that mentioned that even an Intel
> chip that supports VT-x will be disabled by the OEM.  You may need
> to keep that list handy and be ready to do plenty of research.

My "plenty of research" has not yet been enough.  Either I'm using
poor search keys, or hardware virtualization is not yet something that
the vendors are advertising very much.

I've pretty much given up on the idea of finding a used box, and also
on Intel because it's just too complicated to verify that hardware
virtualization can be enabled in an Intel box.

I'm ready to buy a new AMD 64 box (many have AMD Virtual), but I don't
even know how to do this.  I'm afraid that if I do a RFQ and identify
enabling hardware virtualization as the key requirement, vendors will
either shy away from it or make me pay for my "custom requirement".

Anyone have a suggestion?

- -- 
 John E. Kreznar jek at ininx.com 9F1148454619A5F08550 705961A47CC541AFEF13

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iD8DBQFLHesxYaR8xUGv7xMRAhrmAJ0WUPsmAhcpcy39WSxhZuSSQ/yQgwCfbMCf
HlSP98CiTl7tgrE1UVxF4zo=
=KAvn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----