Before 3 weeks maybe, i faced a problem in launching WP emulator. After troubleshooting, i found that visualization option in my Laptop is not running successfully.
Laptop spec. (Acer 4253):
CPU: AMD E-350, Zacate 40nm Technology
OS: Operating System, Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
RAM: 4.00GB DDR3 # 532MHz
I have downloaded Speccy to check visualization info, since nothing relate to visualization is appear in bios settings, and i found that "Hyper-threading" is not supported!, any help?
Hyperthreading is only an Intel technology, AMD doesn't have hperthreading on any of it's processors evem the AMD FX generation.
Hyper-threading (officially called Hyper-Threading Technology or HT Technology, and abbreviated as HTT or HT) is Intel's proprietary simultaneous multithreading (SMT) implementation used to improve parallelization of computations.
For Virtualizaton, you have written it ok in the title, but you wrote visualization wrong every time... processors dont have visualization.:)
Everything on your WP configuration looks ok, you shouldn't worry what the amd parameters are because they are just fine... you have to just configure and run the program same as for any amd processor, which is probably the same with intel, programs have almost zero configuration differences between the two.
Related
I want to test Intel SGX technology on my Lenovo Tower S510 10L3-000JFM. I checked via https://github.com/ayeks/SGX-hardware that my CPU Intel Core i7-6700 supports SGX but BIOS does not, or may be not enabled (in BIOS). A BIOS update can fix this. However, a recent BIOS update from Lenovo in https://pcsupport.lenovo.com/us/en/products/desktops-and-all-in-ones/lenovo-s-series-all-in-ones/s510-desktop/10kw/downloads/ds112505 does not specify that explicitly as I do not want to proceed to this risky operation without being sure.
My question is: is this BIOS update supporting Intel SGX? Or not?
Any help or resources are welcomed.
Last BIOS update is on 01/09/2016 and last CPU microcode update is on 07/01/2016.
According to a Lenovo BIOS engineer, BIOS for this computer model does not support Intel SGX and there is no plan for the future.
The Linux kernel does not transparently handle the Intel SGX. An application has to be written specifically for Intel SGX to use it.
If you just want to write code for Intel SGX, you can use the SIMULATION mode provided in the SGX SDK to write code and test it out. You won't be able to use Remote Attestation (and Local attestation) as it requires access to the hardware. Apart from that, everything should work fine.
The issue that I experience is that when running simulations (same IBPSA/AixLib-based models) on Linux I get a significant performance drop (simulation time is about doubled) in comparison to a Windows 8 machine. Below you find the individual specs of the two machines. In both cases I use Cvode solver with equal settings. Compilation is done with VC14.0 (Win) or GCC (Xubuntu).
Is this issue familiar to someone or can anyone help what the reason might be?
Win 8:
Intel Xeon #2.9GHz (6 logic processors)
32 GB RAM
64-Bit
Xubuntu 16.04 VM:
Intel Xeon #3.7GHz (24 logic processors)
64 GB RAM
64-Bit
Thanks!
In addition to the checklist in the comments, also consider enabling hardware virtualization support if not already done.
In general gcc tends to produce slower code than Visual Studio. In order to turn on optimization one could try adding the following line:
CFLAGS=$CFLAGS" -02"
at the top of insert/dsbuild.sh.
The reason for not having it turned on by default is to avoid lenghty compilations and bloated binaries. For industrial sized models these are actual issues.
I tried searching and searching and can't find a reason why one can't boot Linux from iPhone. I am not asking if there are drivers available for Linux or anything like that, I am just wondering why one can't boot Linux on a standard ARM processor ?
There isn't any such thing as a "standard ARM processor". Every ARM-based SoC is a little bit different, and Apple doesn't publish any information about how their SoCs work. (They aren't even standard Cortex-A designs; the Apple A6 and later all use CPU cores which were customized by Apple.)
Additionally, all of Apple's SoCs contain a bootloader in ROM which verifies a cryptographic signature before running any software from flash memory. This makes it impossible to run an operating system which was not signed by Apple.
In school we've been taught that compilers compile a computer program to machine language. We've also been taught that the machine language consists of direct instructions to the hardware. Then how can the same compiled program run on several computer configurations with different hardware?
Depends what you mean by 'different hardware' if it is the same processor (or same family eg Intel x86) then the machine code instructions are the same.
If the extra hardware is different peripherals (screens, disks printers etc) then the operating system hides those details by giving you a consistent set of instructions to drive them
If you mean, how can you run a program for an ARM cpu on an Intel x86, then you can't - except by some sort of virtual machine emulator that reads each of the ARM instructions and either translates them into x86 or runs the same functionality as a set of x86 funcs and then returns the same answer that the ARM ones would have done.
Edit: I assume you mean PCs with different hw - ie different peripherals but the same processor family?
Talking to hardware doesn't involve specific instructions as such - it's mostly a matter of moving memory to specific locations where the operating system and/or device driver have specifically reserved for data going to that device. In the old days of DOS and BIOS you would then trigger an interupt to call a specific bit of code in the BIOS to act on that data and send it to the HW.
With an emulator or a virtual machine, either of which effectively translates the machine language on the fly.
I think it is more accurate to say that native compilers compile to a specific instruction set of a processor. Since there are families of processors that keep backwards compatibility: 8086 - 80386 - 80486 - 80586 - Dual Core - Quad Core...; then each processor runs the instructions of its ancestors. If you want to port your code across processor architectures, then you need for sure a virtual machine or emulator, like it was mentioned previously.
I am using VMware Server 1.0.7 on Windows XP SP3 at the moment to test software in virtual machines.
I have also tried Microsoft Virtual PC (do not remeber the version, could be 2004 or 2007) and VMware was way faster at the time.
I have heard of Parallels and VirtualBox but I did not have the time to try them out. Anybody has some benchmarks how fast is each of them (or some other)?
I searched for benchmarks on the web, but found nothing useful.
I am looking primarily for free software, but if it is really better than free ones I would pay for it.
Also, if you are using (or know of) a good virtualization software but have no benchmarks for it, please let me know.
From my experience of Parallels and VMware (on the PC and more extensively on the Mac) the difference between any 2 competing versions of the software is usually quite small and often 'reversed' in the next releases.
I never found Parallels to be much faster (or slower) than VMware - it often would be a case of the state of the VM I was running, the host machine itself and the app(s) I was running within the VM. If VMWare brought out a new release which did something faster, you could be sure that Parallels would improve their performance in that area in the next release, too.
In the end I settled on VMWare Fusion and the key reason for this was just that it played nicely with VMware Workstation on the PC. I have trouble taking Parallels VMs from the Mac to the PC and back again, and this worked fine on VMware. Finally, though this is less of a concern, I was unhappy that sometimes it felt as if Parallels would release a version without proper regression testing - you'd get the up-to-date version and find that networking was suddenly unexplicably broken until they released another patch a few days later. I doubt this is still the case but VMware always felt a little more 'in control' and professional to me.
I'd go for a solution that you can get running in a stable fashion on your PC, that is compatible with your other requirements (such as your co-workers' platforms and your overall budget). You can waste your lifetime trying to measure which one is faster at any given task!
One other thing - it's worth checking the documentation that comes with the software, and any forums etc, before making judgements about performance. For instance, in my experience throwing huge amounts of ram at your VM (at the expense of free ram in the host system) does NOT automatically make it faster; better to split the ram up evenly, and certainly keep an eye on any recommended figure. In VMware, that recommended figure is a good guide.
You'll get best performance if your hardware supports hardware virtualization, such as AMD's AMD-V or Intel's VT, and you enable this feature on the computer and in your virtualization software.
For Microsoft solutions, you need at least Virtual PC 2007 or Virtual Server 2005 R2 SP1, or Hyper-V on Windows Server 2008 (I don't expect you'll rebuild your system just to run Hyper-V, but I thought I'd mention it).
Subjectively I haven't noticed any difference between Virtual PC and VMware Workstation performance; I'm using VMware now as it supports USB virtualization, which Virtual PC doesn't.
You also generally need to install appropriate custom, virtualization-aware, drivers in the guest OS, as the standard drivers are expecting to talk to real hardware. In Virtual PC and Server these are called Additions, in VMware they are VMware Tools.
Anandtech has some great info on virtualization. Although they are not any benchmarks, it provides a great insight on why it is so difficult to do proper virtualization benchmarks. I cannot suggest you a specific product, because it depends very much on your requirements.