gvt-linux VS Docker-OSX

Yeah i read that too, I also found this.. https://github.com/intel/gvt-linux/issues/64

Intel has already confirmed that GVT-g is essentially dead and not supported on their Iris/Xe or anything newer graphics.. We can also confirm this via their own drivers source..

https://github.com/intel/gvt-linux/blob/gvt-staging/drivers/...

On Intel iGPUs, there are two methods: GVT-g and GVT-d. GVT-g is basically creating virtual instances of the iGPU for use in VMs, while GVT-d is passing through an entire iGPU to the guest in the same way you would do with a normal GPU.

From the Intel GVTg_Setup_Guide;

Not really pass through, no. If CONFIG_DRM_I915_GVT is enabled in your kernel, you can use Intel's graphics virtualization system... basically a virtio style virtual device that shares the GPU between VM and host. IMO this is way more convenient than real passthrough, where the device is only available either to the VM or the host. The downside is that you don't get full performance in the VM.

"Intel GVT-g is a full GPU virtualization solution with mediated pass-through (VFIO mediated device framework based), starting from 5th generation Intel Core(TM) processors with Intel Graphics processors. GVT-g supports both Xen and KVM (a.k.a XenGT & a.k.a KVMGT). A virtual GPU instance is maintained for each VM, with part of performance critical resources directly assigned. The capability of running native graphics driver inside a VM, without hypervisor intervention in performance critical paths, achieves a good balance among performance, feature, and sharing capability."

https://github.com/intel/gvt-linux/wiki/GVTg_Setup_Guide

Wait a minute. GVT-g with 11th gen iGPUs upwards does work in linux guest? Are you sure about that? See this github issue for reference.

To be clear, I never said it was dead, only a dead end.

As for GVT-g and Xe, according to a post in this[0] issue by one of the Intel devs, Rocket Lake (Xe) is not getting support and only does GVT-d.

Also in the same issue, someone pointed out that Intel themselves have states as much here[1].

I hope I am proven wrong in the end and GVT-g comes to then entire Xe and ARC lineup. Intel's communication on this matter has been...lacking.

0: https://github.com/intel/gvt-linux/issues/190

1: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000...

After days of trial and error, I could not get it to work, maybe one of you knows it. Currently, I try to setup GVT-d with KVM on my Dell XPS 13 2 in 1 7390, which has a i7-1065G7. AFAIK GVT-g is not supported, so I gave GVT-d a chance. The virtual machine is booting without any errors, but the display stays black. I only found this guide, but couldn't get it to work...

Running macOS legally requires real mac servers and a bespoke storage solution: https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/analysis/not-just-stac...

A self-hosted macOS runner will be more economical in the long-run, if you have a spot you can hook it up at, or if you're fine doing things less than legally, you can use https://github.com/sickcodes/Docker-OSX.

Repositório Docker-OSX - Guidelines, troubleshooting, comandos

> What's the licensing situation on this?

1. This project didn't take explicit permission from Apple to redistribute binaries

2. There are multiple jurisdictions where you don't need to explicitly have such permission, it is implied by law

3. Usage of this software implies you already have macOS system. I'm not a lawyer, but it looks to be covered by section 3 of macOS EULA.

4. There are existing precedents of redistribution of macOS binaries for multiple years aready:

- https://github.com/cirruslabs/macos-image-templates/pkgs/con...

- https://hub.docker.com/r/sickcodes/docker-osx

- https://app.vagrantup.com/jhcook/boxes/macos-sierra

And so on.

Google is “friendlier”, because they run some automated scans on the apk and you’re good. Apple has humans run your app to confirm it does what you claim, as well as a battery of automated scans and since they are using the app I’d imagine they look at network traffic as much as possible. I know iOS isn’t shielded from malicious apps, but there’s malware and viruses all over the play store. That’s because it’s free and “friendlier”.

> At Apple things have gotten way worse. Trying to automate release building is practically impossible and will require hours or CI pipeline debugging with error messages that don't mean what they say.

This isn’t Apple’s fault… every build system sucks up a decent amount of time during initial setup. You can cut down massive amounts of time between iterations by adding some common optimizations:

1. Cache artifacts when that step or job succeeds, so if a subsequent step/job fails, you can adjust it and start up where you left off, using the caches artifact to restore the workspace state. This complicates debugging efforts and I personally don’t do any optimization until the pipeline is reliably green each time. I just deal with slow builds and switch to other stuff or work ahead while they run.

2. Fail fast. The CI run should bail out if any critical steps don’t pass, so anything further down doesn’t run for no reason, burning compute time and delaying queued jobs waiting for a runner. While developing the pipeline, watch the logs and when you see something you don’t like, slap the cancel button, or collect a couple things you need to change and iterate with passes with 2-3 changes.

3. Use adequately spec’s hardware. Xcode is resource heavy and compiles need plenty of memory and cpu cores. Play around with what is a good compromise between power and cost. See if your project builds faster with more cpu cores, or faster cpu cores, etc.

> At least Googles process is quite simple and can be dockerized.

One man’s simple is another man’s “practically impossible”. Simple comes from familiarity and confidence. Anyway, you can totally run your builds in docker if you want to, and many do, but I’d personally not introduce more complexity until you have your pipelines running the slow way with the least amount of mental modeling to do. Once you know it all works, then have a go at running the build you know is good, inside a docker container (which in this case is just packing up kvm/qemu/libvirt to facilitate the running of a vm back on the host, but it means you can run mac containers on Linux runners, which will be much cheaper than Mac runners since those are usually Mac hardware)

https://github.com/sickcodes/Docker-OSX

> Also why do I have to pay Apple $125 a year when it costs $100 in the US? The exchange rate from CHF to USD should be in my favor.

Couple theories. 1. They have additional processing or tax expenses when dealing with your currency which they aren’t going to eat the cost of. 2. The higher price could be to deter abuse if for some reason there is an abnormal amount originating from accounts who pay with that currency.

You can use qemu/libvirt/kvm on any Linux host to run macOS pretty easily these days[1]. I run Ventura on unraid with nvidea gpu passthrough and it’s been fairly painless.

You can also run macOS in docker, but it’s ultimately running through qemu/kvm as well[2]

1. https://github.com/kholia/OSX-KVM

2. https://github.com/sickcodes/Docker-OSX

It would be a better idea to setup bluebubbles if you really want imessages while you wait, if you have an old laptop that you can use as a macos server. https://github.com/sickcodes/Docker-OSX is a brilliant solution for macos vm as a docker container. mac hardware not required