On 07/28/2011 11:49 AM, Juergen Gotteswinter wrote:
Am 28.07.11 11:23, schrieb Peter Peltonen:
Hi,
A few more questions :)
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:56 AM, John R. Dennisonjrd@gerdesas.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:53:23AM +0200, Juergen Gotteswinter wrote:
i think i am not the only one who wants to stay with with xen :)
Far from it. Xen still has a place as a dom0.
What are the reasons for people staying with Xen as dom0, just the learning curve? Or are there some technical considerations as well?
Are there any good migration guides from xen to KVM?
Can xen domUs be used with KVM easily?
I am myself wondering should I learn KVM and go with C6 dom0 or to stick with C5 for now...
BR, Peter _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
my experiences with KVM
- overcomittmend possible -> very bad in lots of producation systems
How is the *possibility* of overcomittment a bad thing. It gives you additional options. In many situation it *is* a good idea and KVM giving you the option should be a pro not a con. Nobody forces you to overcommit.
- vms run as qemu process which take often lots of more memory then
assigned to the vm, which could result in swapping (qemu overhead? dunno...)
Define "lots of more memory". Are you sure you are not looking at virtual memory and/or buffers?
- performance Issues, espacially io
Citations needed.
- cli tools arent as easy to use than xm / xl
If you use libvirt then you can keep using the same tools that you used for xen. The fact that the old tools seem to be easier to use i often a result of familiarity and not necessarily an indicator that the new tools are objectively worse.
I don't have any KVM guest in production yet but I've tested with both Linux and Windows 2008 guests and so far I hardly see any difference to my Xen guests.
Regards, Dennis