Hi,
I am running CentOS 5.3 32bit as a VirtualBox 3.0.0 guest running on Windows XP.
The Windows host CPU usage is constantly at 50% although the CentOS guest is completely idle (i.e. 0.00 load average).
I know this is a common problem related to the 1000Hz frequency that the CentOS kernel runs at. With previous versions of CentOS, I used the kernel-vm package [1] and it solved my problem. However, according to the README [2] this isn't necessary as of CentOS 5.3 and therefore these packages are not maintained anymore (the latest released kernel-vm is 2.6.18-92.1.22).
From what I understand, as of CentOS 5.3 it is possible to use the
"divider=10 clocksource=acpi_pm" to reduce the frequency to 100Hz. I tried this setting, and it made no difference at all. I also tried to install the VirtualBox guest extensions, and still, the host CPU never goes below 50%.
Is there any way to solve this issue without resorting to a custom kernel build?
Thanks, Sagi
[1] http://people.centos.org/tru/kernel-vm/ [2] http://people.centos.org/tru/kernel-vm/readme.txt
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Sagi Basharisagi@boom.org.il wrote:
Hi,
I am running CentOS 5.3 32bit as a VirtualBox 3.0.0 guest running on Windows XP.
The Windows host CPU usage is constantly at 50% although the CentOS guest is completely idle (i.e. 0.00 load average).
I know this is a common problem related to the 1000Hz frequency that the CentOS kernel runs at. With previous versions of CentOS, I used the kernel-vm package [1] and it solved my problem. However, according to the README [2] this isn't necessary as of CentOS 5.3 and therefore these packages are not maintained anymore (the latest released kernel-vm is 2.6.18-92.1.22).
From what I understand, as of CentOS 5.3 it is possible to use the
"divider=10 clocksource=acpi_pm" to reduce the frequency to 100Hz. I tried this setting, and it made no difference at all.
This is interesting. Could you please try installing the regular 2.6.18-92.1.22 kernel and use the "divider=10 clocksource=acpi_pm" option? This is the only way to compare the kernel-vm and the distro kernel. Currently, the difference you are seeing could be due to the fact kernel-vm was from 5.2 and the distro one was from 5.3.
Akemi
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Akemi Yagiamyagi@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Sagi Basharisagi@boom.org.il wrote:
Hi,
I am running CentOS 5.3 32bit as a VirtualBox 3.0.0 guest running on Windows XP.
The Windows host CPU usage is constantly at 50% although the CentOS guest is completely idle (i.e. 0.00 load average).
I know this is a common problem related to the 1000Hz frequency that the CentOS kernel runs at. With previous versions of CentOS, I used the kernel-vm package [1] and it solved my problem. However, according to the README [2] this isn't necessary as of CentOS 5.3 and therefore these packages are not maintained anymore (the latest released kernel-vm is 2.6.18-92.1.22).
From what I understand, as of CentOS 5.3 it is possible to use the
"divider=10 clocksource=acpi_pm" to reduce the frequency to 100Hz. I tried this setting, and it made no difference at all.
This is interesting. Could you please try installing the regular 2.6.18-92.1.22 kernel and use the "divider=10 clocksource=acpi_pm" option? This is the only way to compare the kernel-vm and the distro kernel. Currently, the difference you are seeing could be due to the fact kernel-vm was from 5.2 and the distro one was from 5.3.
Actually, it looks like I got it wrong. I was too quick to draw these conclusions: My previous experience with the kernel-vm package was on a different host, with a different version of VirtualBox (2.2.2), on a different host operating system (Windows 2003 Server). There, I encountered the same problem of high CPU usage and installing the kernel-vm problem indeed solved it. But now I went back to the same host and installed the latest CentOS 5.3 kernel (2.6.18-128.1.16.el5) and idle CPU usage was low without using any special parameters.
On my new box where I currently encounter the problem I tried installing the regular 2.6.18-92.1.22 kernel with the "divider=10 clocksource=acpi_pm" parameters like you suggested, and also the old kernel-vm package, and in both of these attempts idle host CPU usage was at 50%. So it looks like although the symptoms are the same the cause is different.
I guess it may be related to the newer version of VirtualHost, the different hardware or the different operating system. Any idea what else I can try to reduce the CPU usage on this host?
Thanks, Sagi
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Sagi Basharisagi@boom.org.il wrote:
On my new box where I currently encounter the problem I tried installing the regular 2.6.18-92.1.22 kernel with the "divider=10 clocksource=acpi_pm" parameters like you suggested, and also the old kernel-vm package, and in both of these attempts idle host CPU usage was at 50%. So it looks like although the symptoms are the same the cause is different.
I guess it may be related to the newer version of VirtualHost, the different hardware or the different operating system. Any idea what else I can try to reduce the CPU usage on this host?
Because the issue is most likely related to VirtualBox and Windows rather than CentOS, you may have a better chance of getting help by going to the VB channels:
http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Community
Akemi
Hi,
I just closed a service-request with sun. Topic: Why is Win32 slower running with two CPUs under VBox 3 than running with one CPU on VBox 2?
I am running VBox on CentOS 5 64 bit (AMD Athlon Dual Core).
The problem is - according to sun - the IO-APIC-emulation: On 32-bit-systems this io-apic-emulation (needed for passing interrupts between CPUs) has to use a full software-context-switching - making things slow.
I tried recreating the problem with CentOS 5 64 Bit as VM, two CPUs: no problem With CentOS 5 32 Bit as VM: same problem.
I guess some problems with multi-cpu-VMs using 32-bit-operating-systems on a 64-bit hardware are related to this - no matter if you are using xen (fully virtualized), VirtualBox or VMWare.
Kind regards
Nils
-----Original Message----- From: centos-virt-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-virt-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Akemi Yagi Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 10:24 PM To: Discussion about the virtualization on CentOS Subject: Re: [CentOS-virt] High CPU usage when running a CentOS guest inVirtualBox
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Sagi Basharisagi@boom.org.il wrote:
On my new box where I currently encounter the problem I tried installing the regular 2.6.18-92.1.22 kernel with the "divider=10 clocksource=acpi_pm" parameters like you suggested, and
also the old
kernel-vm package, and in both of these attempts idle host
CPU usage
was at 50%. So it looks like although the symptoms are the same the cause is different.
I guess it may be related to the newer version of VirtualHost, the different hardware or the different operating system. Any idea what else I can try to reduce the CPU usage on this host?
Because the issue is most likely related to VirtualBox and Windows rather than CentOS, you may have a better chance of getting help by going to the VB channels:
http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Community
Akemi _______________________________________________ CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 5:33 AM, Hildebrand, Nils, 232Nils.Hildebrand@bamf.bund.de wrote:
Hi,
I just closed a service-request with sun. Topic: Why is Win32 slower running with two CPUs under VBox 3 than running with one CPU on VBox 2?
I am running VBox on CentOS 5 64 bit (AMD Athlon Dual Core).
The problem is - according to sun - the IO-APIC-emulation: On 32-bit-systems this io-apic-emulation (needed for passing interrupts between CPUs) has to use a full software-context-switching - making things slow.
I tried recreating the problem with CentOS 5 64 Bit as VM, two CPUs: no problem With CentOS 5 32 Bit as VM: same problem.
I guess some problems with multi-cpu-VMs using 32-bit-operating-systems on a 64-bit hardware are related to this - no matter if you are using xen (fully virtualized), VirtualBox or VMWare.
Interesting. I do not have any 32-bit multi-cpu VMs myself, but I do have access to such guests running on a host (64-bit) using kvm. Both CentOS-5 32-bit VM and CentOS-4 32-bit VM show normal load (near 100% idle on all cpus). They have the divider=10 option by the way.
Akemi
Hi Akemi,
KVM uses a para-virtualized approach?
With para-virtualized guests or with 32-bit guests running a single CPU there is no need to simulate the IO-APIC.
Kind regards
Nils
-----Original Message----- From: centos-virt-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-virt-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Akemi Yagi Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 6:15 PM To: Discussion about the virtualization on CentOS Subject: Re: [CentOS-virt] High CPU usage when running a CentOS guestinVirtualBox
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 5:33 AM, Hildebrand, Nils, 232Nils.Hildebrand@bamf.bund.de wrote:
Hi,
I just closed a service-request with sun. Topic: Why is Win32 slower running with two CPUs under VBox 3 than running with one CPU on VBox 2?
I am running VBox on CentOS 5 64 bit (AMD Athlon Dual Core).
The problem is - according to sun - the IO-APIC-emulation: On 32-bit-systems this io-apic-emulation (needed for passing interrupts between CPUs) has to use a full
software-context-switching
- making things slow.
I tried recreating the problem with CentOS 5 64 Bit as VM,
two CPUs:
no problem With CentOS 5 32 Bit as VM: same problem.
I guess some problems with multi-cpu-VMs using 32-bit-operating-systems on a 64-bit hardware are related
to this - no
matter if you are using xen (fully virtualized), VirtualBox
or VMWare.
Interesting. I do not have any 32-bit multi-cpu VMs myself, but I do have access to such guests running on a host (64-bit) using kvm. Both CentOS-5 32-bit VM and CentOS-4 32-bit VM show normal load (near 100% idle on all cpus). They have the divider=10 option by the way.
Akemi _______________________________________________ CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Hildebrand, Nils, 232 Nils.Hildebrand@bamf.bund.de wrote:
Hi Akemi,
KVM uses a para-virtualized approach?
Not at this moment according to this Red Hat virtualization guide:
http://www.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/5.4/html/Virtualiz...
Akemi
On 09/14/2009 04:53 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Hildebrand, Nils, 232 Nils.Hildebrand@bamf.bund.de wrote:
Hi Akemi,
KVM uses a para-virtualized approach?
Not at this moment according to this Red Hat virtualization guide:
http://www.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/5.4/html/Virtualiz...
Ugh, I guess that means my plans to switch from Xen to KVM have to wait until RHEL 6 is released.
I wondering why that is though. Since 5.3 the kernel comes with the virtio drivers and you can install it paravirtualized under e.g. Fedora 11 so I'm not sure what actually prevents PV from working in KVM in 5.4.
Regards, Dennis
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:18, Dennis J. dennisml@conversis.de wrote:
On 09/14/2009 04:53 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Hildebrand, Nils, 232 Nils.Hildebrand@bamf.bund.de wrote:
KVM uses a para-virtualized approach?
Not at this moment according to this Red Hat virtualization guide:
Ugh, I guess that means my plans to switch from Xen to KVM have to wait until RHEL 6 is released.
I don't believe KVM will *ever* support para-virtualization in the same sense that Xen does.
For instance, see this FAQ in KVM's website: http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/FAQ#What_is_the_difference_between_KVM_and_Xen...
I believe the point is that current support for VT in recent processors is good enough to be able to run VMs with a native kernel at the same speed that could only be achieved with a para-virtualized kernel before. Therefore, the para-virtualized approach is being discontinued as "a hack" and the tendency is to improve VM technologies to run native code only.
On the other hand, there is now talk about para-virtualized device drivers, which mean drivers that are optimized to run in a VM environment, which I believe are important in getting good performance from native kernels in VMs. The same concept exists in Xen, when you run Windows in Xen you do it using HVM (non-para-virtualized) mode, in which case you will only get good performance by loading the Xen drivers on the Windows machine, I believe the concept is the same there.
HTH, Filipe
Hi,
this weekend I took a closer look at KVM. I think that the paravirtualized XEN or Hyper-V-Approach is superior to the full virtualization. Red Hat 6 will have XEN-Support (propably XEN 3.4 with power-consumption savings).
The only drawback is that you need modified Kernels for paravirtualization to work. Fully virtualized systems might be simpler if you have a very mixed environment without dedicated Administrators for every operating system.
Kind regards
Nils
-----Original Message----- From: centos-virt-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-virt-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Filipe Brandenburger Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 9:24 PM To: Discussion about the virtualization on CentOS Subject: Re: [CentOS-virt] High CPU usage when running a CentOSguestinVirtualBox
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:18, Dennis J. dennisml@conversis.de wrote:
On 09/14/2009 04:53 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Hildebrand, Nils, 232
Nils.Hildebrand@bamf.bund.de wrote:
KVM uses a para-virtualized approach?
Not at this moment according to this Red Hat virtualization guide:
Ugh, I guess that means my plans to switch from Xen to KVM have to wait until RHEL 6 is released.
I don't believe KVM will *ever* support para-virtualization in the same sense that Xen does.
For instance, see this FAQ in KVM's website: http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/FAQ#What_is_the_difference_betwe en_KVM_and_Xen.3F
I believe the point is that current support for VT in recent processors is good enough to be able to run VMs with a native kernel at the same speed that could only be achieved with a para-virtualized kernel before. Therefore, the para-virtualized approach is being discontinued as "a hack" and the tendency is to improve VM technologies to run native code only.
On the other hand, there is now talk about para-virtualized device drivers, which mean drivers that are optimized to run in a VM environment, which I believe are important in getting good performance from native kernels in VMs. The same concept exists in Xen, when you run Windows in Xen you do it using HVM (non-para-virtualized) mode, in which case you will only get good performance by loading the Xen drivers on the Windows machine, I believe the concept is the same there.
HTH, Filipe _______________________________________________ CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 12:47:08PM +0100, Hildebrand, Nils, 232 wrote:
Hi,
this weekend I took a closer look at KVM. I think that the paravirtualized XEN or Hyper-V-Approach is superior to the full virtualization.
PV has it's advantages..
Red Hat 6 will have XEN-Support (propably XEN 3.4 with power-consumption savings).
What did you hear this? Is it a fact?
-- Pasi
Hi,
my local RH-salesman told me that rh6 will be based on a mix of Fedora 11/12 - so I hope for the best.
At the moment I am stuck with SLES (currently 10) on our Dom0-servers, since it has the newer XEN-version. I would love to move to RH or CentOS with my Dom0s...
Kind regards
Nils
-----Original Message----- From: centos-virt-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-virt-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Pasi Kärkkäinen Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 3:58 PM To: Discussion about the virtualization on CentOS Subject: Re: [CentOS-virt] High CPU usage when running aCentOSguestinVirtualBox
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 12:47:08PM +0100, Hildebrand, Nils, 232 wrote:
Hi,
this weekend I took a closer look at KVM. I think that the
paravirtualized XEN or Hyper-V-Approach is superior to the full virtualization.
PV has it's advantages..
Red Hat 6 will have XEN-Support (propably XEN 3.4 with
power-consumption savings).
What did you hear this? Is it a fact?
-- Pasi
CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 04:45:56PM +0100, Hildebrand, Nils, 232 wrote:
Hi,
my local RH-salesman told me that rh6 will be based on a mix of Fedora 11/12 - so I hope for the best.
Yeah, RHEL6 will be based on Fedora 12 (afaik). Also, I think RHEL6 will support running as Xen guest (PV domU), but I don't think they're going to ship dom0 with it..
I really hope they would, but I'm not holding my breath considering how much they talk about KVM..
At the moment I am stuck with SLES (currently 10) on our Dom0-servers, since it has the newer XEN-version. I would love to move to RH or CentOS with my Dom0s...
Upgrade to SLES11 at least then.. I think it has Xen 3.4.1 available and 2.6.27 dom0 kernel.
-- Pasi
Kind regards
Nils
-----Original Message----- From: centos-virt-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-virt-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Pasi Kärkkäinen Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 3:58 PM To: Discussion about the virtualization on CentOS Subject: Re: [CentOS-virt] High CPU usage when running aCentOSguestinVirtualBox
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 12:47:08PM +0100, Hildebrand, Nils, 232 wrote:
Hi,
this weekend I took a closer look at KVM. I think that the
paravirtualized XEN or Hyper-V-Approach is superior to the full virtualization.
PV has it's advantages..
Red Hat 6 will have XEN-Support (propably XEN 3.4 with
power-consumption savings).
What did you hear this? Is it a fact?
-- Pasi
CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
Hi,
Do you really think that RHEL6 will not include dom0 version ? It seems that KVM will be the favorite for redhat virtualisation but i think Xen is actually largely deployed. We have here a "cluster" of ten Xen centos 5.4 dom0 and i'm asking what it will become with RHEL6 if there is no more dom0 version. We think about migration from Xen to KVM but the process could be complex and i don't know if kvm will equal Xen performance for production use. Anyone as the same problem/question here.
Regards
Pasi Kärkkäinen a écrit :
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 04:45:56PM +0100, Hildebrand, Nils, 232 wrote:
Hi,
my local RH-salesman told me that rh6 will be based on a mix of Fedora 11/12 - so I hope for the best.
Yeah, RHEL6 will be based on Fedora 12 (afaik). Also, I think RHEL6 will support running as Xen guest (PV domU), but I don't think they're going to ship dom0 with it..
I really hope they would, but I'm not holding my breath considering how much they talk about KVM..
At the moment I am stuck with SLES (currently 10) on our Dom0-servers, since it has the newer XEN-version. I would love to move to RH or CentOS with my Dom0s...
Upgrade to SLES11 at least then.. I think it has Xen 3.4.1 available and 2.6.27 dom0 kernel.
-- Pasi
Kind regards
Nils
-----Original Message----- From: centos-virt-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-virt-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Pasi Kärkkäinen Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 3:58 PM To: Discussion about the virtualization on CentOS Subject: Re: [CentOS-virt] High CPU usage when running aCentOSguestinVirtualBox
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 12:47:08PM +0100, Hildebrand, Nils, 232 wrote:
Hi,
this weekend I took a closer look at KVM. I think that the
paravirtualized XEN or Hyper-V-Approach is superior to the full virtualization.
PV has it's advantages..
Red Hat 6 will have XEN-Support (propably XEN 3.4 with
power-consumption savings).
What did you hear this? Is it a fact?
-- Pasi
CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
Frederic SOULIER wrote:
Hi,
Do you really think that RHEL6 will not include dom0 version ?
Yes, Xen Dom0 will be never supported from RHEL6, onlu domU ...
It seems that KVM will be the favorite for redhat virtualisation but i think Xen is actually largely deployed. We have here a "cluster" of ten Xen centos 5.4 dom0 and i'm asking what it will become with RHEL6 if there is no more dom0 version.
Well, you have several options:
- Migrate to KVM - Migrate to Oracle VM - Migrate to Windows Hyper-V - Migrate to VMware
.. or your dom0 cluster will be unsupported ....
We think about migration from Xen to KVM but the process could be complex and i don't know if kvm will equal Xen performance for production use. Anyone as the same problem/question here.
I have do it some tests using KVM under rhel5.4 and perfromance it is very very high ... but only for rhel5.x guests. For Windows versions or solaris/opensolaris systems performance is ver very poor until they released virtio drivers for these platforms ...
Regards
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:11:24AM +0100, carlopmart wrote:
Frederic SOULIER wrote:
Hi,
Do you really think that RHEL6 will not include dom0 version ?
Yes, Xen Dom0 will be never supported from RHEL6, onlu domU ...
It seems that KVM will be the favorite for redhat virtualisation but i think Xen is actually largely deployed. We have here a "cluster" of ten Xen centos 5.4 dom0 and i'm asking what it will become with RHEL6 if there is no more dom0 version.
Well, you have several options:
- Migrate to KVM
- Migrate to Oracle VM
- Migrate to Windows Hyper-V
- Migrate to VMware
Or to Citrix XenServer. Or run your own dom0 setup.. if self-support is an option :) Or keep running RHEL5.x on dom0, that'll be supported for a long time still.
-- Pasi
.. or your dom0 cluster will be unsupported ....
We think about migration from Xen to KVM but the process could be complex and i don't know if kvm will equal Xen performance for production use. Anyone as the same problem/question here.
I have do it some tests using KVM under rhel5.4 and perfromance it is very very high ... but only for rhel5.x guests. For Windows versions or solaris/opensolaris systems performance is ver very poor until they released virtio drivers for these platforms ...
Regards
-- CL Martinez carlopmart {at} gmail {d0t} com _______________________________________________ CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:11:24AM +0100, carlopmart wrote:
Frederic SOULIER wrote:
Hi,
Do you really think that RHEL6 will not include dom0 version ?
Yes, Xen Dom0 will be never supported from RHEL6, onlu domU ...
It seems that KVM will be the favorite for redhat virtualisation but i think Xen is actually largely deployed. We have here a "cluster" of ten Xen centos 5.4 dom0 and i'm asking what it will become with RHEL6 if there is no more dom0 version.
Well, you have several options:
- Migrate to KVM
- Migrate to Oracle VM
- Migrate to Windows Hyper-V
- Migrate to VMware
Or to Citrix XenServer. Or run your own dom0 setup.. if self-support is an option :) Or keep running RHEL5.x on dom0, that'll be supported for a long time still.
Still it isn't official, but Citrix XenServer will disappears soon ... It will be integrated under Microsoft Hyper-V ....
IMHO, it isn't a good option to maintain domO virt servers based on CentOS or RHEL now ... It is the time to migrate to another solutions ...
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:39:35AM +0100, carlopmart wrote:
Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:11:24AM +0100, carlopmart wrote:
Frederic SOULIER wrote:
Hi,
Do you really think that RHEL6 will not include dom0 version ?
Yes, Xen Dom0 will be never supported from RHEL6, onlu domU ...
It seems that KVM will be the favorite for redhat virtualisation but i think Xen is actually largely deployed. We have here a "cluster" of ten Xen centos 5.4 dom0 and i'm asking what it will become with RHEL6 if there is no more dom0 version.
Well, you have several options:
- Migrate to KVM
- Migrate to Oracle VM
- Migrate to Windows Hyper-V
- Migrate to VMware
Or to Citrix XenServer. Or run your own dom0 setup.. if self-support is an option :) Or keep running RHEL5.x on dom0, that'll be supported for a long time still.
Still it isn't official, but Citrix XenServer will disappears soon ... It will be integrated under Microsoft Hyper-V ....
Uhm.. I don't believe this. Where did you read that?
Citrix XenServer was opensourced last week, or the hypervisor+tools part, the xencenter management interface remains closed source (but it can also manage hyper-v).
IMHO, it isn't a good option to maintain domO virt servers based on CentOS or RHEL now ... It is the time to migrate to another solutions ...
RHEL5, with Xen, will be fully supported by Redhat until 2014. They have clearly stated that many times.
-- Pasi
Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
Still it isn't official, but Citrix XenServer will disappears soon ... It will be integrated under Microsoft Hyper-V ....
Uhm.. I don't believe this. Where did you read that?
Citrix XenServer was opensourced last week, or the hypervisor+tools part, the xencenter management interface remains closed source (but it can also manage hyper-v).
IMHO, it isn't a good option to maintain domO virt servers based on CentOS or RHEL now ... It is the time to migrate to another solutions ...
RHEL5, with Xen, will be fully supported by Redhat until 2014. They have clearly stated that many times.
-- Pasi
Ok, I think I haven't explained well, sorry. Citrix Xenserver's hypervisor and tools was donated by Citrix last week, correct. But Citrix didn't release more versions of the product because it does not intend to develop it and apply new features. Citrix virtualization bussiness will be focused only on Management and Desktop virtualization using Hper-V as a first platform and second VMware.
And correct, RHEL5 Xen will be supported till 2014, but did you use a technology that upstream doesn't put the necessary resources to mantain and apply new features??
RedHat virtaulziation efforts are focused at 99% on KVM solutions, for Xen only applies security updates and nothing else.
best regards.
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:27:57AM +0100, carlopmart wrote:
Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
Still it isn't official, but Citrix XenServer will disappears soon ... It will be integrated under Microsoft Hyper-V ....
Uhm.. I don't believe this. Where did you read that?
Citrix XenServer was opensourced last week, or the hypervisor+tools part, the xencenter management interface remains closed source (but it can also manage hyper-v).
IMHO, it isn't a good option to maintain domO virt servers based on CentOS or RHEL now ... It is the time to migrate to another solutions ...
RHEL5, with Xen, will be fully supported by Redhat until 2014. They have clearly stated that many times.
-- Pasi
Ok, I think I haven't explained well, sorry. Citrix Xenserver's hypervisor and tools was donated by Citrix last week, correct. But Citrix didn't release more versions of the product because it does not intend to develop it and apply new features. Citrix virtualization bussiness will be focused only on Management and Desktop virtualization using Hper-V as a first platform and second VMware.
Where did you read this? You write it like it's a fact - I haven't seen that anywhere.. ??
And correct, RHEL5 Xen will be supported till 2014, but did you use a technology that upstream doesn't put the necessary resources to mantain and apply new features??
RedHat virtaulziation efforts are focused at 99% on KVM solutions, for Xen only applies security updates and nothing else.
That's not true. Upcoming RHEL 5.5 will have Xen-related bugfixes as usual.
-- Pasi
Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:27:57AM +0100, carlopmart wrote:
Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
Still it isn't official, but Citrix XenServer will disappears soon ... It will be integrated under Microsoft Hyper-V ....
Uhm.. I don't believe this. Where did you read that?
Citrix XenServer was opensourced last week, or the hypervisor+tools part, the xencenter management interface remains closed source (but it can also manage hyper-v).
IMHO, it isn't a good option to maintain domO virt servers based on CentOS or RHEL now ... It is the time to migrate to another solutions ...
RHEL5, with Xen, will be fully supported by Redhat until 2014. They have clearly stated that many times.
-- Pasi
Ok, I think I haven't explained well, sorry. Citrix Xenserver's hypervisor and tools was donated by Citrix last week, correct. But Citrix didn't release more versions of the product because it does not intend to develop it and apply new features. Citrix virtualization bussiness will be focused only on Management and Desktop virtualization using Hper-V as a first platform and second VMware.
Where did you read this? You write it like it's a fact - I haven't seen that anywhere.. ??
This will be announced over next weeks ...
And correct, RHEL5 Xen will be supported till 2014, but did you use a technology that upstream doesn't put the necessary resources to mantain and apply new features??
RedHat virtaulziation efforts are focused at 99% on KVM solutions, for Xen only applies security updates and nothing else.
That's not true. Upcoming RHEL 5.5 will have Xen-related bugfixes as usual.
-- Pasi
Bugfixes and security updates only, but what about new features like XCI, RAS fetures, etc?? Do you really think they are going to be ported by RedHat on his xen?? I think not.
CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 01:20:11PM +0100, carlopmart wrote:
Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:27:57AM +0100, carlopmart wrote:
Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
Still it isn't official, but Citrix XenServer will disappears soon ... It will be integrated under Microsoft Hyper-V ....
Uhm.. I don't believe this. Where did you read that?
Citrix XenServer was opensourced last week, or the hypervisor+tools part, the xencenter management interface remains closed source (but it can also manage hyper-v).
IMHO, it isn't a good option to maintain domO virt servers based on CentOS or RHEL now ... It is the time to migrate to another solutions ...
RHEL5, with Xen, will be fully supported by Redhat until 2014. They have clearly stated that many times.
-- Pasi
Ok, I think I haven't explained well, sorry. Citrix Xenserver's hypervisor and tools was donated by Citrix last week, correct. But Citrix didn't release more versions of the product because it does not intend to develop it and apply new features. Citrix virtualization bussiness will be focused only on Management and Desktop virtualization using Hper-V as a first platform and second VMware.
Where did you read this? You write it like it's a fact - I haven't seen that anywhere.. ??
This will be announced over next weeks ...
Again, are you speculating, or is this a fact? I think Citrix XenServer 5.7 will be released soon :)
And correct, RHEL5 Xen will be supported till 2014, but did you use a technology that upstream doesn't put the necessary resources to mantain and apply new features??
RedHat virtaulziation efforts are focused at 99% on KVM solutions, for Xen only applies security updates and nothing else.
That's not true. Upcoming RHEL 5.5 will have Xen-related bugfixes as usual.
-- Pasi
Bugfixes and security updates only, but what about new features like XCI, RAS fetures, etc?? Do you really think they are going to be ported by RedHat on his xen?? I think not.
XCI has nothing to do with using Xen on servers. And yes, big new features most probably won't be ported to RHEL5.
RHEL5 will be transferred to 'maintenance' mode after a while.. the feature that are there now will be there in the future aswell.
Btw. the earlier list of options didn't list Novell SLES11.. it has pretty good implementation of Xen aswell (Xen 3.4.1 + 2.6.27 dom0 kernel).
-- Pasi
Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 01:20:11PM +0100, carlopmart wrote:
Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:27:57AM +0100, carlopmart wrote:
Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
Still it isn't official, but Citrix XenServer will disappears soon ... It will be integrated under Microsoft Hyper-V ....
Uhm.. I don't believe this. Where did you read that?
Citrix XenServer was opensourced last week, or the hypervisor+tools part, the xencenter management interface remains closed source (but it can also manage hyper-v).
IMHO, it isn't a good option to maintain domO virt servers based on CentOS or RHEL now ... It is the time to migrate to another solutions ...
RHEL5, with Xen, will be fully supported by Redhat until 2014. They have clearly stated that many times.
-- Pasi
Ok, I think I haven't explained well, sorry. Citrix Xenserver's hypervisor and tools was donated by Citrix last week, correct. But Citrix didn't release more versions of the product because it does not intend to develop it and apply new features. Citrix virtualization bussiness will be focused only on Management and Desktop virtualization using Hper-V as a first platform and second VMware.
Where did you read this? You write it like it's a fact - I haven't seen that anywhere.. ??
This will be announced over next weeks ...
Again, are you speculating, or is this a fact? I think Citrix XenServer 5.7 will be released soon :)
Ok, stay and wait. But I repeat: Citrix will focused his efforts only on Management and Desktop virtualization, not on servers. First past it is do it: donate xenserver to opesource community.
And correct, RHEL5 Xen will be supported till 2014, but did you use a technology that upstream doesn't put the necessary resources to mantain and apply new features??
RedHat virtaulziation efforts are focused at 99% on KVM solutions, for Xen only applies security updates and nothing else.
That's not true. Upcoming RHEL 5.5 will have Xen-related bugfixes as usual.
-- Pasi
Bugfixes and security updates only, but what about new features like XCI, RAS fetures, etc?? Do you really think they are going to be ported by RedHat on his xen?? I think not.
XCI has nothing to do with using Xen on servers. And yes, big new features most probably won't be ported to RHEL5.
RHEL5 will be transferred to 'maintenance' mode after a while.. the feature that are there now will be there in the future aswell.
Btw. the earlier list of options didn't list Novell SLES11.. it has pretty good implementation of Xen aswell (Xen 3.4.1 + 2.6.27 dom0 kernel).
-- Pasi
I have a serious doubts about Novell and Oracle will do about Xen. We need to wait ...
CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:36 AM, carlopmart carlopmart@gmail.com wrote:
Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 01:20:11PM +0100, carlopmart wrote:
Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:27:57AM +0100, carlopmart wrote:
Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> Still it isn't official, but Citrix XenServer will disappears soon
... It will be
> integrated under Microsoft Hyper-V .... > Uhm.. I don't believe this. Where did you read that?
Citrix XenServer was opensourced last week, or the hypervisor+tools part, the xencenter management interface remains closed source (but
it
can also manage hyper-v).
> IMHO, it isn't a good option to maintain domO virt servers based on
CentOS or RHEL
> now ... It is the time to migrate to another solutions ... > RHEL5, with Xen, will be fully supported by Redhat until 2014. They
have
clearly stated that many times.
-- Pasi
Ok, I think I haven't explained well, sorry. Citrix Xenserver's
hypervisor and tools
was donated by Citrix last week, correct. But Citrix didn't release
more versions of
the product because it does not intend to develop it and apply new
features. Citrix
virtualization bussiness will be focused only on Management and
Desktop
virtualization using Hper-V as a first platform and second VMware.
Where did you read this? You write it like it's a fact - I haven't seen that anywhere.. ??
This will be announced over next weeks ...
Again, are you speculating, or is this a fact? I think Citrix XenServer
5.7
will be released soon :)
Ok, stay and wait. But I repeat: Citrix will focused his efforts only on Management and Desktop virtualization, not on servers. First past it is do it: donate xenserver to opesource community.
If this is true it will not only be the death of Xen but of Citrix as well. I don't see a company surviving that only makes a gui to manage someone else's VM solution. I think Microsoft is capable of making their own GUI.
I do think that we should probably just give up on getting xen in the kernel for Dom0. It's clear that the kernel guys will never let this happen. Xen may very well become a distribution providing a Dom0. The DomU stuff is already in the kernel so a very light distribution that only provides networking tools, security tools and the Dom0 code would be fine for those who want to continue using Xen. I've not been convinced that KVM is quite ready to do what Xen does. I use it but not for production.
Grant McWilliams
Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll use Windows." Now they have two problems.
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 05:01:46AM -0800, Grant McWilliams wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:36 AM, carlopmart <[1]carlopmart@gmail.com> wrote:
Pasi KÀrkkÀinen wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 01:20:11PM +0100, carlopmart wrote: >> Pasi KÀrkkÀinen wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:27:57AM +0100, carlopmart wrote: >>>> Pasi KÀrkkÀinen wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Still it isn't official, but Citrix XenServer will disappears soon ... It will be >>>>>> integrated under Microsoft Hyper-V .... >>>>>> >>>>> Uhm.. I don't believe this. Where did you read that? >>>>> >>>>> Citrix XenServer was opensourced last week, or the hypervisor+tools >>>>> part, the xencenter management interface remains closed source (but it >>>>> can also manage hyper-v). >>>>> >>>>>> IMHO, it isn't a good option to maintain domO virt servers based on CentOS or RHEL >>>>>> now ... It is the time to migrate to another solutions ... >>>>>> >>>>> RHEL5, with Xen, will be fully supported by Redhat until 2014. They have >>>>> clearly stated that many times. >>>>> >>>>> -- Pasi >>>> Ok, I think I haven't explained well, sorry. Citrix Xenserver's hypervisor and tools >>>> was donated by Citrix last week, correct. But Citrix didn't release more versions of >>>> the product because it does not intend to develop it and apply new features. Citrix >>>> virtualization bussiness will be focused only on Management and Desktop >>>> virtualization using Hper-V as a first platform and second VMware. >>>> >>> Where did you read this? You write it like it's a fact - I haven't seen >>> that anywhere.. ?? >> This will be announced over next weeks ... >> > > Again, are you speculating, or is this a fact? I think Citrix XenServer 5.7 > will be released soon :) Ok, stay and wait. But I repeat: Citrix will focused his efforts only on Management and Desktop virtualization, not on servers. First past it is do it: donate xenserver to opesource community.If this is true it will not only be the death of Xen but of Citrix as well. I don't see a company surviving that only makes a gui to manage someone else's VM solution. I think Microsoft is capable of making their own GUI.
I think that was just speculation. It doesn't make much sense to me. Time will show :)
I do think that we should probably just give up on getting xen in the kernel for Dom0. It's clear that the kernel guys will never let this happen.
Xen _hypervisor_ doesn't need to be in the kernel - that's the whole point. Xen hypervisor is external piece, maintained (and updated) separately from the dom0 kernel.
pv_ops Xen dom0 kernel patches are currently in the process of being cleaned up to be acceptable for upstream inclusion. That has taken longer than originally thought, ie. more changes had to be done after the previous attempt of upstreaming.
Jeremy will have a talk about pv_ops dom0 status and plans this month at Xen Summit (in China, at Intel's facility).
http://blog.xen.org/index.php/2009/11/04/xen-summit-asia-2009-event-informat...
Xen may very well become a distribution providing a Dom0. The DomU stuff is already in the kernel so a very light distribution that only provides networking tools, security tools and the Dom0 code would be fine for those who want to continue using Xen. I've not been convinced that KVM is quite ready to do what Xen does. I use it but not for production.
The newly opensourced XenServer could be developed to be something like this..
There's also a recent project to develop web management interface for XenServer:
http://blog.xen.org/index.php/2009/11/09/project-xvp/
-- Pasi
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 01:36:32PM +0100, carlopmart wrote:
Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 01:20:11PM +0100, carlopmart wrote:
Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:27:57AM +0100, carlopmart wrote:
Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> Still it isn't official, but Citrix XenServer will disappears soon ... It will be > integrated under Microsoft Hyper-V .... > Uhm.. I don't believe this. Where did you read that?
Citrix XenServer was opensourced last week, or the hypervisor+tools part, the xencenter management interface remains closed source (but it can also manage hyper-v).
> IMHO, it isn't a good option to maintain domO virt servers based on CentOS or RHEL > now ... It is the time to migrate to another solutions ... > RHEL5, with Xen, will be fully supported by Redhat until 2014. They have clearly stated that many times.
-- Pasi
Ok, I think I haven't explained well, sorry. Citrix Xenserver's hypervisor and tools was donated by Citrix last week, correct. But Citrix didn't release more versions of the product because it does not intend to develop it and apply new features. Citrix virtualization bussiness will be focused only on Management and Desktop virtualization using Hper-V as a first platform and second VMware.
Where did you read this? You write it like it's a fact - I haven't seen that anywhere.. ??
This will be announced over next weeks ...
Again, are you speculating, or is this a fact? I think Citrix XenServer 5.7 will be released soon :)
Ok, stay and wait. But I repeat: Citrix will focused his efforts only on Management and Desktop virtualization, not on servers. First past it is do it: donate xenserver to opesource community.
http://blog.xen.org/index.php/2009/11/02/simon-crosby-explains-citrixs-open-...
Simon Crosby is the CTO of Citrix/Xensource.
Interview here: http://searchservervirtualization.techtarget.com/generic/0,295582,sid94_gci1...
Direct MP3 download link of the interview: http://ehg-techtarget.hitbox.com/redirector.mp3?hb=DM560429E9VV83EN3;DM52122...
Quote from the interview (hopefully I got all the words correctly):
"Q: Citrix already gives away XenServer for free, so how do you plan to make money in the market, and how would you respond to those who say that by making XenServer free and now mostly opensource, Citrix is basicly conceding the server virtualization market to VMware and Microsoft."
"A: Yeah, Anything but giving it away. "A: Last quarter we added 25 000 customers"
Just listen to the interview yourself.
RHEL5 will be transferred to 'maintenance' mode after a while.. the feature that are there now will be there in the future aswell.
Btw. the earlier list of options didn't list Novell SLES11.. it has pretty good implementation of Xen aswell (Xen 3.4.1 + 2.6.27 dom0 kernel).
-- Pasi
I have a serious doubts about Novell and Oracle will do about Xen. We need to wait ...
Both Novell and Oracle having been deeply involved in Xen lately, both are developing and supporting their own products based on Xen.
-- Pasi
Both Novell and Oracle having been deeply involved in Xen lately, both are developing and supporting their own products based on Xen.
-- Pasi
I have no problem with a "better" solution than Xen because to be honest it's a pain sometimes but at this point virtually all enterprise VM deployments are either based on VMware ESX or Xen (Xenserver, VirtualIron, Amazon AWS, Oracle, Sun SVM, Redhat and Suse). This tide will change as KVM becomes more dominant in the VM space but I don't see that happening for a while. I'm also a bit skeptical as to how well a fully virtualized system (KVM) will run in comparison to a fully paravirtualized system (Xen PV). I have a system with 41 VMs on it and I'll be having 2 weeks of planned downtime in the near future. I'd like to see how these systems run under KVM.
Grant McWilliams
Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll use Windows." Now they have two problems.
On 11/10/2009 03:35 PM, Grant McWilliams wrote:
Both Novell and Oracle having been deeply involved in Xen lately, both are developing and supporting their own products based on Xen. -- Pasi ___I have no problem with a "better" solution than Xen because to be honest it's a pain sometimes but at this point virtually all enterprise VM deployments are either based on VMware ESX or Xen (Xenserver, VirtualIron, Amazon AWS, Oracle, Sun SVM, Redhat and Suse). This tide will change as KVM becomes more dominant in the VM space but I don't see that happening for a while. I'm also a bit skeptical as to how well a fully virtualized system (KVM) will run in comparison to a fully paravirtualized system (Xen PV). I have a system with 41 VMs on it and I'll be having 2 weeks of planned downtime in the near future. I'd like to see how these systems run under KVM.
I've been wondering about the definition of PV in the context of KVM/Xen. In the Linux on Linux case for Xen PV practically means that in the HVM case I have to access block devices using /dev/hda while in the PV case I can use the faster /dev/xvda. When using KVM which apparently only supports HVM I can still install a guest using the virtio drivers which seem to do the same as the paravirtualized devices on Xen.
So what is the KVM+virtio case if not paravirtualization?
Regards, Dennis
I've been wondering about the definition of PV in the context of KVM/Xen. In the Linux on Linux case for Xen PV practically means that in the HVM case I have to access block devices using /dev/hda while in the PV case I can use the faster /dev/xvda. When using KVM which apparently only supports HVM I can still install a guest using the virtio drivers which seem to do the same as the paravirtualized devices on Xen.
So what is the KVM+virtio case if not paravirtualization?
Regards, Dennis __________
All of it except for that! Your VM isn't just a process accessing a disk. With KVM they've attacked the most commond devices - network and disk and offered paravirtualized devices. This doesn't concern me as the speed has proven to be good although in mysqlbench Xen still leads by quite a bit. I'm concerned about everything else. With 41 interactive VMs I worry about how fast the hypervisor can switch focus, the cpu utilization of each etc..
Grant McWilliams
Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll use Windows." Now they have two problems.
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 06:57:08AM -0800, Grant McWilliams wrote:
All of it except for that! Your VM isn't just a process accessing a disk. With KVM they've attacked the most commond devices - network and disk and offered paravirtualized devices. This doesn't concern me as the speed has proven to be good although in mysqlbench Xen still leads by quite a bit. I'm concerned about everything else. With 41 interactive VMs I worry about how fast the hypervisor can switch focus, the cpu utilization of each etc..
What are the hardware specs you're running your 41 VM's off of just out of curiosity?
Ray
On 11/10/2009 04:02 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 06:57:08AM -0800, Grant McWilliams wrote:
All of it except for that! Your VM isn't just a process accessing a disk. With KVM they've attacked the most commond devices - network and disk and offered paravirtualized devices. This doesn't concern me as the speed has proven to be good although in mysqlbench Xen still leads by quite a bit. I'm concerned about everything else. With 41 interactive VMs I worry about how fast the hypervisor can switch focus, the cpu utilization of each etc..
What are the hardware specs you're running your 41 VM's off of just out of curiosity?
I'd be interested in that info too especially the storage setup. I imagine local storage isn't suitable for this many VMs on a single host.
Regards, Dennis
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Dennis J. dennisml@conversis.de wrote:
On 11/10/2009 04:02 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 06:57:08AM -0800, Grant McWilliams wrote:
All of it except for that! Your VM isn't just a process accessing a disk. With KVM they've attacked the most commond devices - network and disk and offered paravirtualized devices. This doesn't concern me as the speed has proven to be good although in mysqlbench Xen still leads by quite a bit. I'm concerned about everything else. With 41 interactive VMs I worry about how fast the hypervisor can switch focus, the cpu utilization of each etc..
What are the hardware specs you're running your 41 VM's off of just out of curiosity?
I'd be interested in that info too especially the storage setup. I imagine local storage isn't suitable for this many VMs on a single host.
Regards, Dennis
Eight core Xeon, 32 GB of ram and local storage for now. The storage is the main bottleneck but as soon as my PO goes through I'll have a second machine providing storage from the RAID via iSCSI. I have other ideas but I'll be putting them in a different post.
Students access their VM via NX. As you can imagine the requirements for this setup is not the same as for 40 web servers... I'm still in the process of finding ways of tweaking it to get whatever speed I can.
Grant McWilliams
On 11/10/2009 03:57 PM, Grant McWilliams wrote:
I've been wondering about the definition of PV in the context of KVM/Xen. In the Linux on Linux case for Xen PV practically means that in the HVM case I have to access block devices using /dev/hda while in the PV case I can use the faster /dev/xvda. When using KVM which apparently only supports HVM I can still install a guest using the virtio drivers which seem to do the same as the paravirtualized devices on Xen. So what is the KVM+virtio case if not paravirtualization? Regards, Dennis __________All of it except for that! Your VM isn't just a process accessing a disk. With KVM they've attacked the most commond devices - network and disk and offered paravirtualized devices. This doesn't concern me as the speed has proven to be good although in mysqlbench Xen still leads by quite a bit. I'm concerned about everything else. With 41 interactive VMs I worry about how fast the hypervisor can switch focus, the cpu utilization of each etc..
I get that but if the line is becoming this blurry (with KVM apparently beeing "somewhat" paravirtualized) does it make sense anymore to distinguish between HVM/PV?
Regards, Dennis
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 03:49:59PM +0100, Dennis J. wrote:
On 11/10/2009 03:35 PM, Grant McWilliams wrote:
Both Novell and Oracle having been deeply involved in Xen lately, both are developing and supporting their own products based on Xen. -- Pasi ___I have no problem with a "better" solution than Xen because to be honest it's a pain sometimes but at this point virtually all enterprise VM deployments are either based on VMware ESX or Xen (Xenserver, VirtualIron, Amazon AWS, Oracle, Sun SVM, Redhat and Suse). This tide will change as KVM becomes more dominant in the VM space but I don't see that happening for a while. I'm also a bit skeptical as to how well a fully virtualized system (KVM) will run in comparison to a fully paravirtualized system (Xen PV). I have a system with 41 VMs on it and I'll be having 2 weeks of planned downtime in the near future. I'd like to see how these systems run under KVM.
I've been wondering about the definition of PV in the context of KVM/Xen. In the Linux on Linux case for Xen PV practically means that in the HVM case I have to access block devices using /dev/hda while in the PV case I can use the faster /dev/xvda. When using KVM which apparently only supports HVM I can still install a guest using the virtio drivers which seem to do the same as the paravirtualized devices on Xen.
So what is the KVM+virtio case if not paravirtualization?
KVM+virtio means you're using paravirtualized disk/net drivers on a fully virtualized guest.. where Qemu emulates full PC hardware with BIOS and all. So only the disk/net virtio drivers bypass Qemu emulation. (Those are the most important and most used devices.)
Xen paravirtualized guests run natively on Xen, there's no need for emulation since the guest kernels are aware that they're being virtualized.. There's no Qemu emulating PC hardware with BIOS for PV guests.
-- Pasi
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 05:12:50PM +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 03:49:59PM +0100, Dennis J. wrote:
On 11/10/2009 03:35 PM, Grant McWilliams wrote:
Both Novell and Oracle having been deeply involved in Xen lately, both are developing and supporting their own products based on Xen. -- Pasi ___I have no problem with a "better" solution than Xen because to be honest it's a pain sometimes but at this point virtually all enterprise VM deployments are either based on VMware ESX or Xen (Xenserver, VirtualIron, Amazon AWS, Oracle, Sun SVM, Redhat and Suse). This tide will change as KVM becomes more dominant in the VM space but I don't see that happening for a while. I'm also a bit skeptical as to how well a fully virtualized system (KVM) will run in comparison to a fully paravirtualized system (Xen PV). I have a system with 41 VMs on it and I'll be having 2 weeks of planned downtime in the near future. I'd like to see how these systems run under KVM.
I've been wondering about the definition of PV in the context of KVM/Xen. In the Linux on Linux case for Xen PV practically means that in the HVM case I have to access block devices using /dev/hda while in the PV case I can use the faster /dev/xvda. When using KVM which apparently only supports HVM I can still install a guest using the virtio drivers which seem to do the same as the paravirtualized devices on Xen.
So what is the KVM+virtio case if not paravirtualization?
KVM+virtio means you're using paravirtualized disk/net drivers on a fully virtualized guest.. where Qemu emulates full PC hardware with BIOS and all. So only the disk/net virtio drivers bypass Qemu emulation. (Those are the most important and most used devices.)
Xen paravirtualized guests run natively on Xen, there's no need for emulation since the guest kernels are aware that they're being virtualized.. There's no Qemu emulating PC hardware with BIOS for PV guests.
Oh, and Xen also has PV-on-HVM drivers for HVM fully virtualized guests to bypass Qemu :)
-- Pasi
On 11/10/2009 04:13 PM, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 05:12:50PM +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 03:49:59PM +0100, Dennis J. wrote:
On 11/10/2009 03:35 PM, Grant McWilliams wrote:
Both Novell and Oracle having been deeply involved in Xen lately, both are developing and supporting their own products based on Xen. -- Pasi ___I have no problem with a "better" solution than Xen because to be honest it's a pain sometimes but at this point virtually all enterprise VM deployments are either based on VMware ESX or Xen (Xenserver, VirtualIron, Amazon AWS, Oracle, Sun SVM, Redhat and Suse). This tide will change as KVM becomes more dominant in the VM space but I don't see that happening for a while. I'm also a bit skeptical as to how well a fully virtualized system (KVM) will run in comparison to a fully paravirtualized system (Xen PV). I have a system with 41 VMs on it and I'll be having 2 weeks of planned downtime in the near future. I'd like to see how these systems run under KVM.
I've been wondering about the definition of PV in the context of KVM/Xen. In the Linux on Linux case for Xen PV practically means that in the HVM case I have to access block devices using /dev/hda while in the PV case I can use the faster /dev/xvda. When using KVM which apparently only supports HVM I can still install a guest using the virtio drivers which seem to do the same as the paravirtualized devices on Xen.
So what is the KVM+virtio case if not paravirtualization?
KVM+virtio means you're using paravirtualized disk/net drivers on a fully virtualized guest.. where Qemu emulates full PC hardware with BIOS and all. So only the disk/net virtio drivers bypass Qemu emulation. (Those are the most important and most used devices.)
Xen paravirtualized guests run natively on Xen, there's no need for emulation since the guest kernels are aware that they're being virtualized.. There's no Qemu emulating PC hardware with BIOS for PV guests.
Oh, and Xen also has PV-on-HVM drivers for HVM fully virtualized guests to bypass Qemu :)
Which I guess makes describing a guest as "fully virtualized" or "paravirtualized" rather pointless given that there now is just a degree of how paravirtualized a guest is depending on the drivers you use.
Regards, Dennis
Which I guess makes describing a guest as "fully virtualized" or "paravirtualized" rather pointless given that there now is just a degree of how paravirtualized a guest is depending on the drivers you use.
Regards, Dennis
I disagree completely. KVM or Xen HVM are fully virtualized except for two drivers. This is not the same thing as paravirtualized. People seem to think the only thing a computer does is access the disk and network device. With a PV everything is running native and the only overhead is from the Hypervisor.
In a most cases using the VT bits in the CPU makes the virtualization slower in all aspects. This may not be the case in the future. The developers of VirtualBox have documented this.
Grant McWilliams
Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll use Windows." Now they have two problems.
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 07:49:01AM -0800, Grant McWilliams wrote:
Which I guess makes describing a guest as "fully virtualized" or "paravirtualized" rather pointless given that there now is just a degree of how paravirtualized a guest is depending on the drivers you use. Regards, Â DennisI disagree completely. KVM or Xen HVM are fully virtualized except for two drivers. This is not the same thing as paravirtualized. People seem to think the only thing a computer does is access the disk and network device. With a PV everything is running native and the only overhead is from the Hypervisor.
In a most cases using the VT bits in the CPU makes the virtualization slower in all aspects. This may not be the case in the future. The developers of VirtualBox have documented this.
Yeah.. Xen paravirtualized mmu is fast, and in some (many) cases beats CPU hardware virtualized mmu.
KVM has 'pvmmu' aswell, but it's not as good, so KVM is faster with CPU hardware virtualization. But that's a problem of KVM only, they haven't managed to optimize the pvmmu. And they're going to drop it altogether.
KVM people tend to say 'paravirtualized mmu is slow', but they just mean KVM implementation of it sucks :)
-- Pasi
Yeah.. Xen paravirtualized mmu is fast, and in some (many) cases beats CPU hardware virtualized mmu.
KVM has 'pvmmu' aswell, but it's not as good, so KVM is faster with CPU hardware virtualization. But that's a problem of KVM only, they haven't managed to optimize the pvmmu. And they're going to drop it altogether.
KVM people tend to say 'paravirtualized mmu is slow', but they just mean KVM implementation of it sucks :)
-- Pasi
I haven't tested or seen any benchmarks but I wonder how much the addition of a page table for virtualized guests will help. Not to mention newer features like a virtualized task priority register and ASID could continue to require less paravirt code in the guest. I get my two new 5500 series servers in a few weeks so I'm pretty excited to see some of the second gen hardware virtualization assist features in action.
Fedora 12 doesnt come with Xen and from what I heard RHEL 6 will be based on F12. In the F12 release notes it states that they might port Xen in 2.6.33. "The kernel package in Fedora 12 supports booting as a guest domU, but will not function as a dom0 until such support is provided upstream. Work is ongoing and hopes are high that support will be included in kernel 2.6.33 and Fedora 13." I will start testing kvm+virtio+ovirt for my 5-6 virtual machines to migrate from xen. It seems that its the way to go for future deployments. Xen works fine for me now so I am not in a rush.
I started with xen, moved to xenserver, moved back to xen and I will start testing kvm soon.
-Adam
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Scott McClanahan smcclanahan@sigovs.comwrote:
Yeah.. Xen paravirtualized mmu is fast, and in some (many) cases beats CPU hardware virtualized mmu.
KVM has 'pvmmu' aswell, but it's not as good, so KVM is faster with CPU hardware virtualization. But that's a problem of KVM only, they haven't managed to optimize the pvmmu. And they're going to drop it altogether.
KVM people tend to say 'paravirtualized mmu is slow', but they just mean KVM implementation of it sucks :)
-- Pasi
I haven't tested or seen any benchmarks but I wonder how much the addition of a page table for virtualized guests will help. Not to mention newer features like a virtualized task priority register and ASID could continue to require less paravirt code in the guest. I get my two new 5500 series servers in a few weeks so I'm pretty excited to see some of the second gen hardware virtualization assist features in action.
CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 01:52:36PM -0500, Scott McClanahan wrote:
Yeah.. Xen paravirtualized mmu is fast, and in some (many) cases beats CPU hardware virtualized mmu.
KVM has 'pvmmu' aswell, but it's not as good, so KVM is faster with CPU hardware virtualization. But that's a problem of KVM only, they haven't managed to optimize the pvmmu. And they're going to drop it altogether.
KVM people tend to say 'paravirtualized mmu is slow', but they just mean KVM implementation of it sucks :)
-- Pasi
I haven't tested or seen any benchmarks but I wonder how much the addition of a page table for virtualized guests will help. Not to mention newer features like a virtualized task priority register and ASID could continue to require less paravirt code in the guest. I get my two new 5500 series servers in a few weeks so I'm pretty excited to see some of the second gen hardware virtualization assist features in action.
I don't know. Of course hardware will add features and get more optimized in the future.
Some benchmarks from IBM guys, Xen vs. KVM: http://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg13910.html http://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg14068.html http://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg21913.html
Quotes:
"So, KVM requires 66.93/52.85 = 26.6% more CPU to do the same amount of work." "If we normalize to CPU utilization, Xen is doing 20% more throughput." "KVM running Windows VMs uses 46% more CPU than the Other-Hypervisor" "A different hypervisor was compared; KVM used about 60% more CPU cycles to complete the same amount of work."
I bet KVM will catch up at some point.. at the moment it seems to not perform as good as Xen. Then again it's a much younger product.
-- Pasi
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:36:39PM +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 01:52:36PM -0500, Scott McClanahan wrote:
Yeah.. Xen paravirtualized mmu is fast, and in some (many) cases beats CPU hardware virtualized mmu.
KVM has 'pvmmu' aswell, but it's not as good, so KVM is faster with CPU hardware virtualization. But that's a problem of KVM only, they haven't managed to optimize the pvmmu. And they're going to drop it altogether.
KVM people tend to say 'paravirtualized mmu is slow', but they just mean KVM implementation of it sucks :)
-- Pasi
I haven't tested or seen any benchmarks but I wonder how much the addition of a page table for virtualized guests will help. Not to mention newer features like a virtualized task priority register and ASID could continue to require less paravirt code in the guest. I get my two new 5500 series servers in a few weeks so I'm pretty excited to see some of the second gen hardware virtualization assist features in action.
I don't know. Of course hardware will add features and get more optimized in the future.
Some benchmarks from IBM guys, Xen vs. KVM: http://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg13910.html http://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg14068.html http://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg21913.html
And forgot this one: http://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg16579.html
-- Pasi
Quotes:
"So, KVM requires 66.93/52.85 = 26.6% more CPU to do the same amount of work." "If we normalize to CPU utilization, Xen is doing 20% more throughput." "KVM running Windows VMs uses 46% more CPU than the Other-Hypervisor" "A different hypervisor was compared; KVM used about 60% more CPU cycles to complete the same amount of work."
I bet KVM will catch up at some point.. at the moment it seems to not perform as good as Xen. Then again it's a much younger product.
Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
Quotes:
"So, KVM requires 66.93/52.85 = 26.6% more CPU to do the same amount of work." "If we normalize to CPU utilization, Xen is doing 20% more throughput." "KVM running Windows VMs uses 46% more CPU than the Other-Hypervisor" "A different hypervisor was compared; KVM used about 60% more CPU cycles to complete the same amount of work."
Funny they saying "Other-Hypervisor" or "A different hypervisor". Saying "KVM uses about 60% more CPU cycles to complete the same amount of work than Xen" would probably make an Slashdot headline.
I concur with Pasi. Please substantiate claims of fact with links. Otherwise it is relegated to my phantom fact & rumor mongering folders, which is where this conversation is heading. Pasi asked several times for substantiation and I see he requests have been completely ignored or sidestepped.
If there is some factual basis to below please supply:
A) "Still it isn't official, but Citrix XenServer will disappears soon ... It will be integrated under Microsoft Hyper-V ...."
[Which seems to be awkward since the other way around would be better (Hyper-V off of XenServer).]
and the basis of:
B) "Citrix virtualization bussiness will be focused only on Management and Desktop virtualization using Hper-V as a first platform and second VMware."
Repeating (unsubstantiated statements over and over does not make them more true or helpful for the list members to stay informed, it is only a social engineering tool not an answer. Do you have some links to these statements?
Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 01:36:32PM +0100, carlopmart wrote:
Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 01:20:11PM +0100, carlopmart wrote:
Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:27:57AM +0100, carlopmart wrote:
Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
>> Still it isn't official, but Citrix XenServer will disappears soon ... It will be >> integrated under Microsoft Hyper-V .... >> > Uhm.. I don't believe this. Where did you read that? > > Citrix XenServer was opensourced last week, or the hypervisor+tools > part, the xencenter management interface remains closed source (but it > can also manage hyper-v). > >> IMHO, it isn't a good option to maintain domO virt servers based on CentOS or RHEL >> now ... It is the time to migrate to another solutions ... >> > RHEL5, with Xen, will be fully supported by Redhat until 2014. They have > clearly stated that many times. > > -- Pasi Ok, I think I haven't explained well, sorry. Citrix Xenserver's hypervisor and tools was donated by Citrix last week, correct. But Citrix didn't release more versions of the product because it does not intend to develop it and apply new features. Citrix virtualization bussiness will be focused only on Management and Desktop virtualization using Hper-V as a first platform and second VMware.
Where did you read this? You write it like it's a fact - I haven't seen that anywhere.. ??
This will be announced over next weeks ...
Again, are you speculating, or is this a fact? I think Citrix XenServer 5.7 will be released soon :)
Ok, stay and wait. But I repeat: Citrix will focused his efforts only on Management and Desktop virtualization, not on servers. First past it is do it: donate xenserver to opesource community.
http://blog.xen.org/index.php/2009/11/02/simon-crosby-explains-citrixs-open-...
Simon Crosby is the CTO of Citrix/Xensource.
Interview here: http://searchservervirtualization.techtarget.com/generic/0,295582,sid94_gci1...
Direct MP3 download link of the interview: http://ehg-techtarget.hitbox.com/redirector.mp3?hb=DM560429E9VV83EN3;DM52122...
Quote from the interview (hopefully I got all the words correctly):
"Q: Citrix already gives away XenServer for free, so how do you plan to make money in the market, and how would you respond to those who say that by making XenServer free and now mostly opensource, Citrix is basicly conceding the server virtualization market to VMware and Microsoft."
"A: Yeah, Anything but giving it away. "A: Last quarter we added 25 000 customers"
Just listen to the interview yourself.
RHEL5 will be transferred to 'maintenance' mode after a while.. the feature that are there now will be there in the future aswell.
Btw. the earlier list of options didn't list Novell SLES11.. it has pretty good implementation of Xen aswell (Xen 3.4.1 + 2.6.27 dom0 kernel).
-- Pasi
I have a serious doubts about Novell and Oracle will do about Xen. We need to wait ...
Both Novell and Oracle having been deeply involved in Xen lately, both are developing and supporting their own products based on Xen.
-- Pasi
CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 09:36:17AM -0500, Ben M. wrote:
I concur with Pasi. Please substantiate claims of fact with links. Otherwise it is relegated to my phantom fact & rumor mongering folders, which is where this conversation is heading. Pasi asked several times for substantiation and I see he requests have been completely ignored or sidestepped.
If there is some factual basis to below please supply:
A) "Still it isn't official, but Citrix XenServer will disappears soon ... It will be integrated under Microsoft Hyper-V ...."
[Which seems to be awkward since the other way around would be better (Hyper-V off of XenServer).]
and the basis of:
B) "Citrix virtualization bussiness will be focused only on Management and Desktop virtualization using Hper-V as a first platform and second VMware."
Repeating (unsubstantiated statements over and over does not make them more true or helpful for the list members to stay informed, it is only a social engineering tool not an answer. Do you have some links to these statements?
Indeed.
In that interview (that I linked) Simon clearly says they're continuing in the server virtualization market, and growing fast. Citrix has doubled XenServer/XenCenter customers from Q1.
Also he says the next version of XenServer is coming in the beginning of 2010.
-- Pasi
Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 01:36:32PM +0100, carlopmart wrote:
Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 01:20:11PM +0100, carlopmart wrote:
Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:27:57AM +0100, carlopmart wrote: > Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: > >>> Still it isn't official, but Citrix XenServer will disappears soon ... It will be >>> integrated under Microsoft Hyper-V .... >>> >> Uhm.. I don't believe this. Where did you read that? >> >> Citrix XenServer was opensourced last week, or the hypervisor+tools >> part, the xencenter management interface remains closed source (but it >> can also manage hyper-v). >> >>> IMHO, it isn't a good option to maintain domO virt servers based on CentOS or RHEL >>> now ... It is the time to migrate to another solutions ... >>> >> RHEL5, with Xen, will be fully supported by Redhat until 2014. They have >> clearly stated that many times. >> >> -- Pasi > Ok, I think I haven't explained well, sorry. Citrix Xenserver's hypervisor and tools > was donated by Citrix last week, correct. But Citrix didn't release more versions of > the product because it does not intend to develop it and apply new features. Citrix > virtualization bussiness will be focused only on Management and Desktop > virtualization using Hper-V as a first platform and second VMware. > Where did you read this? You write it like it's a fact - I haven't seen that anywhere.. ??
This will be announced over next weeks ...
Again, are you speculating, or is this a fact? I think Citrix XenServer 5.7 will be released soon :)
Ok, stay and wait. But I repeat: Citrix will focused his efforts only on Management and Desktop virtualization, not on servers. First past it is do it: donate xenserver to opesource community.
http://blog.xen.org/index.php/2009/11/02/simon-crosby-explains-citrixs-open-...
Simon Crosby is the CTO of Citrix/Xensource.
Interview here: http://searchservervirtualization.techtarget.com/generic/0,295582,sid94_gci1...
Direct MP3 download link of the interview: http://ehg-techtarget.hitbox.com/redirector.mp3?hb=DM560429E9VV83EN3;DM52122...
Quote from the interview (hopefully I got all the words correctly):
"Q: Citrix already gives away XenServer for free, so how do you plan to make money in the market, and how would you respond to those who say that by making XenServer free and now mostly opensource, Citrix is basicly conceding the server virtualization market to VMware and Microsoft."
"A: Yeah, Anything but giving it away. "A: Last quarter we added 25 000 customers"
Just listen to the interview yourself.
RHEL5 will be transferred to 'maintenance' mode after a while.. the feature that are there now will be there in the future aswell.
Btw. the earlier list of options didn't list Novell SLES11.. it has pretty good implementation of Xen aswell (Xen 3.4.1 + 2.6.27 dom0 kernel).
-- Pasi
I have a serious doubts about Novell and Oracle will do about Xen. We need to wait ...
Both Novell and Oracle having been deeply involved in Xen lately, both are developing and supporting their own products based on Xen.
-- Pasi
CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 04:42:09PM +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 09:36:17AM -0500, Ben M. wrote:
I concur with Pasi. Please substantiate claims of fact with links. Otherwise it is relegated to my phantom fact & rumor mongering folders, which is where this conversation is heading. Pasi asked several times for substantiation and I see he requests have been completely ignored or sidestepped.
If there is some factual basis to below please supply:
A) "Still it isn't official, but Citrix XenServer will disappears soon ... It will be integrated under Microsoft Hyper-V ...."
[Which seems to be awkward since the other way around would be better (Hyper-V off of XenServer).]
and the basis of:
B) "Citrix virtualization bussiness will be focused only on Management and Desktop virtualization using Hper-V as a first platform and second VMware."
Repeating (unsubstantiated statements over and over does not make them more true or helpful for the list members to stay informed, it is only a social engineering tool not an answer. Do you have some links to these statements?
Indeed.
In that interview (that I linked) Simon clearly says they're continuing in the server virtualization market, and growing fast. Citrix has doubled XenServer/XenCenter customers from Q1.
Also he says the next version of XenServer is coming in the beginning of 2010.
And we're getting a bit offtopic about Xen and RHEL6..
-- Pasi
Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 01:36:32PM +0100, carlopmart wrote:
Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 01:20:11PM +0100, carlopmart wrote:
Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:27:57AM +0100, carlopmart wrote: >> Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: >> >>>> Still it isn't official, but Citrix XenServer will disappears soon ... It will be >>>> integrated under Microsoft Hyper-V .... >>>> >>> Uhm.. I don't believe this. Where did you read that? >>> >>> Citrix XenServer was opensourced last week, or the hypervisor+tools >>> part, the xencenter management interface remains closed source (but it >>> can also manage hyper-v). >>> >>>> IMHO, it isn't a good option to maintain domO virt servers based on CentOS or RHEL >>>> now ... It is the time to migrate to another solutions ... >>>> >>> RHEL5, with Xen, will be fully supported by Redhat until 2014. They have >>> clearly stated that many times. >>> >>> -- Pasi >> Ok, I think I haven't explained well, sorry. Citrix Xenserver's hypervisor and tools >> was donated by Citrix last week, correct. But Citrix didn't release more versions of >> the product because it does not intend to develop it and apply new features. Citrix >> virtualization bussiness will be focused only on Management and Desktop >> virtualization using Hper-V as a first platform and second VMware. >> > Where did you read this? You write it like it's a fact - I haven't seen > that anywhere.. ?? This will be announced over next weeks ...
Again, are you speculating, or is this a fact? I think Citrix XenServer 5.7 will be released soon :)
Ok, stay and wait. But I repeat: Citrix will focused his efforts only on Management and Desktop virtualization, not on servers. First past it is do it: donate xenserver to opesource community.
http://blog.xen.org/index.php/2009/11/02/simon-crosby-explains-citrixs-open-...
Simon Crosby is the CTO of Citrix/Xensource.
Interview here: http://searchservervirtualization.techtarget.com/generic/0,295582,sid94_gci1...
Direct MP3 download link of the interview: http://ehg-techtarget.hitbox.com/redirector.mp3?hb=DM560429E9VV83EN3;DM52122...
Quote from the interview (hopefully I got all the words correctly):
"Q: Citrix already gives away XenServer for free, so how do you plan to make money in the market, and how would you respond to those who say that by making XenServer free and now mostly opensource, Citrix is basicly conceding the server virtualization market to VMware and Microsoft."
"A: Yeah, Anything but giving it away. "A: Last quarter we added 25 000 customers"
Just listen to the interview yourself.
RHEL5 will be transferred to 'maintenance' mode after a while.. the feature that are there now will be there in the future aswell.
Btw. the earlier list of options didn't list Novell SLES11.. it has pretty good implementation of Xen aswell (Xen 3.4.1 + 2.6.27 dom0 kernel).
-- Pasi
I have a serious doubts about Novell and Oracle will do about Xen. We need to wait ...
Both Novell and Oracle having been deeply involved in Xen lately, both are developing and supporting their own products based on Xen.
-- Pasi
CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 16:26 +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
Both Novell and Oracle having been deeply involved in Xen lately, both are developing and supporting their own products based on Xen.
Given the fact that Unbreakable is a source rebuild from RHEL, and Oracle is putting a lot of effort behind Xen , they hosted the Xen summit before, after the aquisition of Virtual Iron where they clearly defined their roadmap was Xen based, (not even including potential Xen based platforms they might get when the Sun acquisition eventually falls trough)
So it looks to me that they will have to build a Dom0 based distribution anyhow.
The bigger question however will be if and how this work can come back upstream and potentially be used in CentOS ?
What's the idea on that ?
greetigns
Kris
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 12:43:48PM +0100, Kris Buytaert wrote:
On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 16:26 +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
Both Novell and Oracle having been deeply involved in Xen lately, both are developing and supporting their own products based on Xen.
Given the fact that Unbreakable is a source rebuild from RHEL, and Oracle is putting a lot of effort behind Xen , they hosted the Xen summit before, after the aquisition of Virtual Iron where they clearly defined their roadmap was Xen based, (not even including potential Xen based platforms they might get when the Sun acquisition eventually falls trough)
So it looks to me that they will have to build a Dom0 based distribution anyhow.
The bigger question however will be if and how this work can come back upstream and potentially be used in CentOS ?
What's the idea on that ?
Well.. CentOS is, and will be, 1:1 rebuild of RHEL.
if Oracle is going to build their own dom0 distro, then it could be the upstream project..
-- Pasi
On 11/12/2009 11:43 AM, Kris Buytaert wrote:
The bigger question however will be if and how this work can come back upstream and potentially be used in CentOS ?
What's the idea on that ?
Well, as Pasi already pointed out, the CentOS core-distro will be Red Hat source based - but hey, there is a community here, if there is interest and people around with $clue > 0; No reason why more could not be done along the lines.
el5beta2 will define what problem needs solving, around which edge and what the options are.
I just notice that my 5.3 (updated to 5.4) Centos Xen stock install has different runlevels that my from scratch 5.4 install box.
5.3 --> 5/4
xend 0:off 1:off 2:on 3:on 4:on 5:on 6:off xendomains 0:off 1:off 2:on 3:on 4:on 5:on 6:off
5.4 "pure" xend 0:off 1:off 2:on 3:on 4:on 5:on 6:off xendomains 0:off 1:off 2:off 3:on 4:on 5:on 6:off
Should Level 2 on xendomains be on or off?
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Ben M. centos@rivint.com wrote:
I just notice that my 5.3 (updated to 5.4) Centos Xen stock install has different runlevels that my from scratch 5.4 install box.
5.3 --> 5/4
xend 0:off 1:off 2:on 3:on 4:on 5:on 6:off xendomains 0:off 1:off 2:on 3:on 4:on 5:on 6:off
5.4 "pure" xend 0:off 1:off 2:on 3:on 4:on 5:on 6:off xendomains 0:off 1:off 2:off 3:on 4:on 5:on 6:off
Should Level 2 on xendomains be on or off?
Ok I think the following is correct, but I don't have my notes available to compare with at the moment (and google is having issues for me (though gmail is working great)).
Runlevel 2 in the Red Hat/CentOS/Fedora control system is different from other operating systems and some other Linux's. Where some OS's will use boot levels as stages to run in (you have to go through 1 to get to 2), Linux operating systems in general considers them as seperate ways to start up an OS. And each Linux OS family has its own way of defining what they mean.
In the end, the important question is "Do you run at Runlevel 2?" Runlevel 2 and 4 are rarely used and each has different site definitions of what its being used for. Some sites use runlevel2 as multi-user/no-network, and other sites use it for multi-user/debugging (eg runlevel 3 but some changes to see what might have broken when we turned on X). Runlevel 4 is similarly used (eg its up to a site to define how they want to use it). I think Red Hat normally defines their runlevel 2 as multi-user/no-network which would mean xendomains should be off... however its probably
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com wrote:
In the end, the important question is "Do you run at Runlevel 2?" Runlevel 2 and 4 are rarely used and each has different site definitions of what its being used for. Some sites use runlevel2 as multi-user/no-network, and other sites use it for multi-user/debugging (eg runlevel 3 but some changes to see what might have broken when we turned on X). Runlevel 4 is similarly used (eg its up to a site to define how they want to use it). I think Red Hat normally defines their runlevel 2 as multi-user/no-network which would mean xendomains should be off... however its probably
a reset of a wireless modem and all things work better. that sentance should be: "however its up to you in the end."
sorry about that.
Correct me if i'm wrong. If rhel6 propose domU version that would say that a dom0 rhel5.X version will be able to run rhel6 domU ?
Pasi Kärkkäinen a écrit :
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:39:35AM +0100, carlopmart wrote:
Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:11:24AM +0100, carlopmart wrote:
Frederic SOULIER wrote:
Hi,
Do you really think that RHEL6 will not include dom0 version ?
Yes, Xen Dom0 will be never supported from RHEL6, onlu domU ...
It seems that KVM will be the favorite for redhat virtualisation but i think Xen is actually largely deployed. We have here a "cluster" of ten Xen centos 5.4 dom0 and i'm asking what it will become with RHEL6 if there is no more dom0 version.
Well, you have several options:
- Migrate to KVM
- Migrate to Oracle VM
- Migrate to Windows Hyper-V
- Migrate to VMware
Or to Citrix XenServer. Or run your own dom0 setup.. if self-support is an option :) Or keep running RHEL5.x on dom0, that'll be supported for a long time still.
Still it isn't official, but Citrix XenServer will disappears soon ... It will be integrated under Microsoft Hyper-V ....
Uhm.. I don't believe this. Where did you read that?
Citrix XenServer was opensourced last week, or the hypervisor+tools part, the xencenter management interface remains closed source (but it can also manage hyper-v).
IMHO, it isn't a good option to maintain domO virt servers based on CentOS or RHEL now ... It is the time to migrate to another solutions ...
RHEL5, with Xen, will be fully supported by Redhat until 2014. They have clearly stated that many times.
-- Pasi
CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:45:44AM +0100, Frederic SOULIER wrote:
Correct me if i'm wrong. If rhel6 propose domU version that would say that a dom0 rhel5.X version will be able to run rhel6 domU ?
Yes. That's how I've understood things.
RHEL 5.4 can run already today Fedora 12 Xen PV domU. RHEL6 will be based on F12 (afaik).
-- Pasi
Pasi Kärkkäinen a écrit :
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:39:35AM +0100, carlopmart wrote:
Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:11:24AM +0100, carlopmart wrote:
Frederic SOULIER wrote:
Hi,
Do you really think that RHEL6 will not include dom0 version ?
Yes, Xen Dom0 will be never supported from RHEL6, onlu domU ...
It seems that KVM will be the favorite for redhat virtualisation but i think Xen is actually largely deployed. We have here a "cluster" of ten Xen centos 5.4 dom0 and i'm asking what it will become with RHEL6 if there is no more dom0 version.
Well, you have several options:
- Migrate to KVM
- Migrate to Oracle VM
- Migrate to Windows Hyper-V
- Migrate to VMware
Or to Citrix XenServer. Or run your own dom0 setup.. if self-support is an option :) Or keep running RHEL5.x on dom0, that'll be supported for a long time still.
Still it isn't official, but Citrix XenServer will disappears soon ... It will be integrated under Microsoft Hyper-V ....
Uhm.. I don't believe this. Where did you read that?
Citrix XenServer was opensourced last week, or the hypervisor+tools part, the xencenter management interface remains closed source (but it can also manage hyper-v).
IMHO, it isn't a good option to maintain domO virt servers based on CentOS or RHEL now ... It is the time to migrate to another solutions ...
RHEL5, with Xen, will be fully supported by Redhat until 2014. They have clearly stated that many times.
-- Pasi
CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
-- Frederic Soulier
DSI / STAR Universite Toulouse 1 Capitole 2 RUE DU DOYEN GABRIEL MARTY 31042 TOULOUSE CEDEX 9 FRANCE Tel : +33 5 61 63 39 98 Fax : +33 5 61 63 37 98 / Bureau : AR38 bis http://dsi.univ-tlse1.fr
CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 09:53:24AM +0100, Frederic SOULIER wrote:
Hi,
Do you really think that RHEL6 will not include dom0 version ? It seems that KVM will be the favorite for redhat virtualisation but i think Xen is actually largely deployed.
Well.. I don't have any facts.. And yes, Xen is largely deployed, and good solution.
I use it myself, just like many others.
We have here a "cluster" of ten Xen centos 5.4 dom0 and i'm asking what it will become with RHEL6 if there is no more dom0 version. We think about migration from Xen to KVM but the process could be complex and i don't know if kvm will equal Xen performance for production use. Anyone as the same problem/question here.
I guess we'll just have to wait.. or contact RH folks and ask/push it :)
-- Pasi
Regards
Pasi Kärkkäinen a écrit :
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 04:45:56PM +0100, Hildebrand, Nils, 232 wrote:
Hi,
my local RH-salesman told me that rh6 will be based on a mix of Fedora 11/12 - so I hope for the best.
Yeah, RHEL6 will be based on Fedora 12 (afaik). Also, I think RHEL6 will support running as Xen guest (PV domU), but I don't think they're going to ship dom0 with it..
I really hope they would, but I'm not holding my breath considering how much they talk about KVM..
At the moment I am stuck with SLES (currently 10) on our Dom0-servers, since it has the newer XEN-version. I would love to move to RH or CentOS with my Dom0s...
Upgrade to SLES11 at least then.. I think it has Xen 3.4.1 available and 2.6.27 dom0 kernel.
-- Pasi
Kind regards
Nils
-----Original Message----- From: centos-virt-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-virt-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Pasi Kärkkäinen Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 3:58 PM To: Discussion about the virtualization on CentOS Subject: Re: [CentOS-virt] High CPU usage when running aCentOSguestinVirtualBox
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 12:47:08PM +0100, Hildebrand, Nils, 232 wrote:
Hi,
this weekend I took a closer look at KVM. I think that the
paravirtualized XEN or Hyper-V-Approach is superior to the full virtualization.
PV has it's advantages..
Red Hat 6 will have XEN-Support (propably XEN 3.4 with
power-consumption savings).
What did you hear this? Is it a fact?
-- Pasi
CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
-- Frederic Soulier
DSI / STAR Universite Toulouse 1 Capitole 2 RUE DU DOYEN GABRIEL MARTY 31042 TOULOUSE CEDEX 9 FRANCE Tel : +33 5 61 63 39 98 Fax : +33 5 61 63 37 98 / Bureau : AR38 bis http://dsi.univ-tlse1.fr
CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
-
Adam -
Akemi Yagi -
Ben M. -
carlopmart -
Dennis J. -
Filipe Brandenburger -
Frederic SOULIER -
Grant McWilliams -
Hildebrand, Nils, 232 -
Karanbir Singh -
Kris Buytaert -
Miguel Di Ciurcio Filho -
Pasi Kärkkäinen -
Ray Van Dolson -
Sagi Bashari -
Scott McClanahan -
Stephen John Smoogen