From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40298) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V9JvG-0001F9-Ci for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 15:06:30 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V9JvB-0004L3-E0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 15:06:26 -0400 Received: from mail-we0-x22d.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c03::22d]:56986) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V9JvB-0004Kh-3x for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 15:06:21 -0400 Received: by mail-we0-f173.google.com with SMTP id x55so6951757wes.18 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 12:06:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <520A75CE.6020600@redhat.com> References: <520A58CD.9000404@suse.de> <520A641F.5040608@redhat.com> <520A65BD.3030408@redhat.com> <520A75CE.6020600@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 21:06:20 +0200 Message-ID: From: Juerg Haefliger Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] QEMU savevm RAM page offsets List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Michael Tokarev , Laszlo Ersek , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 13/08/2013 19:52, Juerg Haefliger ha scritto: >> I didn't mean to imply that the savevm format is broken and needed >> fixing. I was just wondering if the data is there and I simply hadn't >> found it. Upgrading QEMU is not an option at the moment since these >> are tightly controlled productions machines. Is it possible to loadvm >> a savevm file from 1.0 with 1.6 to then use guest-memory-dump? > > Yes, it should, but one important thing since 1.0 has been the merger of > qemu-kvm and QEMU. What distribution are you using? I know Fedora > allows qemu-kvm-1.0 to QEMU-1.6 compatibility, but I don't know about > others. Ubuntu 12.04 > Michael Tokarev is the maintainer of the Debian package, so he may be > able to answer. > > Alternatively, you can modify your utility to simply add 512 MB to the > addresses above 3.5 GB. Is it really as simple as that? Isn't the OS (particularly Windows) possibly doing some crazy remapping that needs to be taken into account? meminfo on a VM with 4GB running Windows 2008 shows the following: C:\Users\Administrator\Desktop\MemInfo\amd64>MemInfo.exe -r MemInfo v2.10 - Show PFN database information Copyright (C) 2007-2009 Alex Ionescu www.alex-ionescu.com Physical Memory Range: 0000000000001000 to 000000000009B000 (154 pages, 616 KB) Physical Memory Range: 0000000000100000 to 00000000DFFFD000 (917245 pages, 3668980 KB) Physical Memory Range: 0000000100000000 to 0000000120000000 (131072 pages, 524288 KB) MmHighestPhysicalPage: 1179648 ...Juerg > Paolo