I'm looking for any suggestions, and especially any real experiences,
that anyone cares to offer.

We have a system that includes an x86 box running QNX 6.something.  It
has the following interfaces:

-- network card for product specific data acquisition, 100 base T or
faster

-- network card to user workstation (Windows XP based), 100 base T or
faster

-- USB 2.0 high speed interface to machine control

-- Monitor output, 1024 X 768 32-bit color

-- Standard PC serial port to receive input from touch screen
integrated into above LCD monitor

-- Standard keyboard and mouse, used by service techs only during
service and updates, not the normal users

-- A CD or DVD drive for installing and upgrading the system

We are looking at the possibility of moving the QNX system and
application into a virtual machine on the workstation, which will be a
quad core, dedicating one core to QNX.  We are not looking to change
the QNX system significantly or more it to another RTOS.  There are
many years of development and use.  The QNX application has some real
time requirements, mostly related to the data acquisition, and
injecting timing date from the USB interface into the Ethernet
acquisition stream.

This is not really my part of the system, but the people working on
the Windows/QNX side asked me to see if I could find any options that
they might have missed.

They looked at Tenasys, but apparently that only runs QNX headless, so
it couldn't do the user GUI/touch screen functions.

They say VMware would work, but it is more expensive than they would
like.

So I would appreciate any experiences anyone has to share about
actually running QNX 6 under any x86 VM along with Windows and
achieving real time performance.

TIA,

-- 
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://c-faq.com/
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.club.cc.cmu.edu/~ajo/docs/FAQ-acllc.html

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:07:49 -0500, Jack Klein <j...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>I'm looking for any suggestions, and especially any real experiences,
>that anyone cares to offer.

>We have a system that includes an x86 box running QNX 6.something.  It
>has the following interfaces:

...
check out QEMU, and also do a google search for "qnx qemu"

AZ Nomad schreef:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:07:49 -0500, Jack Klein <j...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>> I'm looking for any suggestions, and especially any real experiences,
>> that anyone cares to offer.
> 
>> We have a system that includes an x86 box running QNX 6.something.  It
>> has the following interfaces:
> 
> ...
> check out QEMU, and also do a google search for "qnx qemu"

I'm not sure how well the QEMU solution would meet the 'real time 
performance' the OP mentioned. Also QEMU is quite slow since it emulates 
the processor as well.

Though there are plenty of VM's (Virtual PC, VirtualBox, VMWare), I 
think it is unlikely one will find a VM that allows guests OS'es to 
provide hard real time guarantees while running in that VM.

Unfortunately the OP wasn't specific about the real time deadlines that 
had to be met, or the host OS.

On Jul 23, 3:12=A0pm, Dombo <do...@disposable.invalid> wrote:
> AZ Nomad schreef:
>
> > On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:07:49 -0500, Jack Klein <jackkl...@spamcop.net> =
wrote:
> >> I'm looking for any suggestions, and especially any real experiences,
> >> that anyone cares to offer.
>
> >> We have a system that includes an x86 box running QNX 6.something. =A0=
It
> >> has the following interfaces:
>
> > ...
> > check out QEMU, and also do a google search for "qnx qemu"
>
> I'm not sure how well the QEMU solution would meet the 'real time
> performance' the OP mentioned. Also QEMU is quite slow since it emulates
> the processor as well.
>
> Though there are plenty of VM's (Virtual PC, VirtualBox, VMWare), I
> think it is unlikely one will find a VM that allows guests OS'es to
> provide hard real time guarantees while running in that VM.
>
> Unfortunately the OP wasn't specific about the real time deadlines that
> had to be met, or the host OS.

You may want to check out the Real-Time Systems Hypervisor. I know
that they give direct hardware access to a guest but I am not sure if
they allow you to run QNX with GUI or not.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:12:30 +0200, Dombo <d...@disposable.invalid> wrote:
>AZ Nomad schreef:
>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:07:49 -0500, Jack Klein <j...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>> I'm looking for any suggestions, and especially any real experiences,
>>> that anyone cares to offer.
>> 
>>> We have a system that includes an x86 box running QNX 6.something.  It
>>> has the following interfaces:
>> 
>> ...
>> check out QEMU, and also do a google search for "qnx qemu"

>I'm not sure how well the QEMU solution would meet the 'real time 
>performance' the OP mentioned. Also QEMU is quite slow since it emulates 
>the processor as well.

Only I/O is emulated.  Programs run natively until they need to do I/O.  
Drivers are installed into the guest OS in order to provide native performance
for I/O as well.  It is the same with vmware.

Perhaps use a hypervisor solution such as XEN?  

>Though there are plenty of VM's (Virtual PC, VirtualBox, VMWare), I 
>think it is unlikely one will find a VM that allows guests OS'es to 
>provide hard real time guarantees while running in that VM.

The non-RT OS is the one that should be running in a virtual environment.
Putting qnx in a virtual machine on a pig of an operating such as windows
would bring the windows lags to guest and host.

>Unfortunately the OP wasn't specific about the real time deadlines that 
>had to be met, or the host OS.

AZ Nomad schreef:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:12:30 +0200, Dombo <d...@disposable.invalid> wrote:
>> AZ Nomad schreef:
>>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:07:49 -0500, Jack Klein <j...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>>> I'm looking for any suggestions, and especially any real experiences,
>>>> that anyone cares to offer.
>>>> We have a system that includes an x86 box running QNX 6.something.  It
>>>> has the following interfaces:
>>> ...
>>> check out QEMU, and also do a google search for "qnx qemu"
> 
>> I'm not sure how well the QEMU solution would meet the 'real time 
>> performance' the OP mentioned. Also QEMU is quite slow since it emulates 
>> the processor as well.
> 
> Only I/O is emulated.  Programs run natively until they need to do I/O.  
> Drivers are installed into the guest OS in order to provide native performance
> for I/O as well.  It is the same with vmware.

Apparently you are talking about a different QEMU than I am, unless you 
were talking about KQEMU.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:17:11 +0200, Dombo <d...@disposable.invalid> wrote:
>AZ Nomad schreef:
>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:12:30 +0200, Dombo <d...@disposable.invalid> wrote:
>>> AZ Nomad schreef:
>>>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:07:49 -0500, Jack Klein <j...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>>>> I'm looking for any suggestions, and especially any real experiences,
>>>>> that anyone cares to offer.
>>>>> We have a system that includes an x86 box running QNX 6.something.  It
>>>>> has the following interfaces:
>>>> ...
>>>> check out QEMU, and also do a google search for "qnx qemu"
>> 
>>> I'm not sure how well the QEMU solution would meet the 'real time 
>>> performance' the OP mentioned. Also QEMU is quite slow since it emulates 
>>> the processor as well.
>> 
>> Only I/O is emulated.  Programs run natively until they need to do I/O.  
>> Drivers are installed into the guest OS in order to provide native performance
>> for I/O as well.  It is the same with vmware.

>Apparently you are talking about a different QEMU than I am, unless you 
>were talking about KQEMU.

I've used QEMU ahd it doesn't do processor virtualization.  For the most part
the guest OS runs at native speeds espcially after a driver is installed
into the guest OS.

Try valgrind if you want to see just what an emulated processor is like.
You're lucky if it runs at a twentieth native speed.

Jack Klein <j...@spamcop.net> writes:
> They say VMware would work, but it is more expensive than they would
> like.

VMware Player or VMware Server are available at no charge.  VMware Server
is ideal for running VMs on a host that may be headless.

mayby QWIN meets your needs:

http://www.ibv-augsburg.net/de/qwin.html

(Product flyer and white paper are in english)

AZ Nomad schreef:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:17:11 +0200, Dombo <d...@disposable.invalid> wrote:
>> AZ Nomad schreef:
>>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:12:30 +0200, Dombo <d...@disposable.invalid> wrote:
>>>> AZ Nomad schreef:
>>>>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:07:49 -0500, Jack Klein <j...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>>>>> I'm looking for any suggestions, and especially any real experiences,
>>>>>> that anyone cares to offer.
>>>>>> We have a system that includes an x86 box running QNX 6.something.  It
>>>>>> has the following interfaces:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> check out QEMU, and also do a google search for "qnx qemu"
>>>> I'm not sure how well the QEMU solution would meet the 'real time 
>>>> performance' the OP mentioned. Also QEMU is quite slow since it emulates 
>>>> the processor as well.
>>> Only I/O is emulated.  Programs run natively until they need to do I/O.  
>>> Drivers are installed into the guest OS in order to provide native performance
>>> for I/O as well.  It is the same with vmware.
> 
>> Apparently you are talking about a different QEMU than I am, unless you 
>> were talking about KQEMU.
> 
> I've used QEMU ahd it doesn't do processor virtualization.  For the most part
> the guest OS runs at native speeds espcially after a driver is installed
> into the guest OS.

I've used QEMU (without the KQEMU driver) on a Windows PC, and it did 
surely did emulate the processor (just like the author of this software 
claims, check the website).

> Try valgrind if you want to see just what an emulated processor is like.
> You're lucky if it runs at a twentieth native speed.

Which is close to what I experienced with QEMU, much slower than native 
or VMWare for example.