Comments on: Sneaking Around VMotion Limitations http://blog.scottlowe.org/2006/09/25/sneaking-around-vmotion-limitations/ The weblog of an IT pro specializing in virtualization, storage, and servers Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:13:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: slowe http://blog.scottlowe.org/2006/09/25/sneaking-around-vmotion-limitations/comment-page-1/#comment-32459 slowe Tue, 19 Jun 2007 01:01:56 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/?p=339#comment-32459 Slawomir, You're correct--sort of! It's not bit 2 that's different, since the bits are numbered starting with 0. It's actually bit 1 that's the same between both CPUs and is also required (marked as "R"). I've updated the article accordingly. Good catch! Slawomir,

You’re correct–sort of! It’s not bit 2 that’s different, since the bits are numbered starting with 0. It’s actually bit 1 that’s the same between both CPUs and is also required (marked as “R”). I’ve updated the article accordingly.

Good catch!

]]> By: Slawomir Oczkowski http://blog.scottlowe.org/2006/09/25/sneaking-around-vmotion-limitations/comment-page-1/#comment-32457 Slawomir Oczkowski Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:50:25 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/?p=339#comment-32457 Hi, This article is extremly helpfull, however I have one question: why having the two incompatible machines given in the examples: RRRR RRRR RRRR RRR0 00XR R0H0 000H 0RRH (mask) 0000 0000 0000 0000 0110 0100 0001 1101 (first system) 0000 0000 0000 0000 0100 0000 0000 0000 (second system): it is said the bit 2 is different? It is the same, so do we have to mask it? ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---0 -000 Would the following mask be sufficient?: ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---0 -0-0 "The only bits we need to mask are the bits not already masked (i.e., those marked with an R or an H in the mask) and where the values are different between the two systems. In this case, bits 0, 1, 2, and 4 are different and are not already masked." No, bit 2 is the same (0=0) on both systems so why to mask it? Thanks for any explanations. It would be great if the VMotionInfo program could suggest the mask for a set of chosen processors (two or more). Best regards, Slawomir Hi,

This article is extremly helpfull, however I have one question:

why having the two incompatible machines given in the examples:
RRRR RRRR RRRR RRR0 00XR R0H0 000H 0RRH (mask)
0000 0000 0000 0000 0110 0100 0001 1101 (first system)
0000 0000 0000 0000 0100 0000 0000 0000 (second system):

it is said the bit 2 is different? It is the same, so do we have to mask it?
—- —- —- —- —- —- —0 -000

Would the following mask be sufficient?:
—- —- —- —- —- —- —0 -0-0

“The only bits we need to mask are the bits not already masked (i.e., those marked with an R or an H in the mask) and where the values are different between the two systems. In this case, bits 0, 1, 2, and 4 are different and are not already masked.”

No, bit 2 is the same (0=0) on both systems so why to mask it?

Thanks for any explanations. It would be great if the VMotionInfo program could suggest the mask for a set of chosen processors (two or more).

Best regards,
Slawomir

]]> By: slowe http://blog.scottlowe.org/2006/09/25/sneaking-around-vmotion-limitations/comment-page-1/#comment-4618 slowe Thu, 23 Nov 2006 02:27:13 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/?p=339#comment-4618 There's growing interest in this type of workaround. There was a presentation at VMworld 2006 this year about this very subject, and figures such as Richard Garsthagen (run-virtual.com) and Mike Laverick (rtfm-education.co.uk) are also working hard to document and codify this information. I hope to be able to get involved in that effort as well. Scott There’s growing interest in this type of workaround. There was a presentation at VMworld 2006 this year about this very subject, and figures such as Richard Garsthagen (run-virtual.com) and Mike Laverick (rtfm-education.co.uk) are also working hard to document and codify this information. I hope to be able to get involved in that effort as well.

Scott

]]> By: DR Shaw http://blog.scottlowe.org/2006/09/25/sneaking-around-vmotion-limitations/comment-page-1/#comment-4612 DR Shaw Thu, 23 Nov 2006 01:36:27 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/?p=339#comment-4612 This is a good nugget of info. Thank you, DR Shaw This is a good nugget of info.

Thank you,

DR Shaw

]]> By: jmftech » Blog Archive » Sneaking around VMotion Limitations http://blog.scottlowe.org/2006/09/25/sneaking-around-vmotion-limitations/comment-page-1/#comment-2901 jmftech » Blog Archive » Sneaking around VMotion Limitations Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:17:42 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/?p=339#comment-2901 [...] This was pulled from Scott Lowe’s web site: http://blog.scottlowe.org/2006/09/25/sneaking-around-vmotion-limitations/ [...] [...] This was pulled from Scott Lowe’s web site: http://blog.scottlowe.org/2006/09/25/sneaking-around-vmotion-limitations/ [...]

]]>