Just want to let you guys know that, although it may have been around for a bit, bringing Xen back to CentOS is awesome and I really appreciate it. I was very disappointed when RedHat dropped support as Xen is awesome.
Thanks for the effort!
I've used both Xen and KVM and at least in benchmarks of applications I did here I didn't see much difference and since KVM is natively supported by RedHat, that's what I've been using.
Obviously on this list there is mostly Xen users, and I feel like I must be missing some great advantage so I am curious, those of you who prefer Xen, why?
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- Eskimo North Linux Friendly Internet Access, Shell Accounts, and Hosting. Knowledgeable human assistance, not telephone trees or script readers. See our web site: http://www.eskimo.com/ (206) 812-0051 or (800) 246-6874.
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014, NightLightHosts Admin wrote:
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:21:36 -1000 From: NightLightHosts Admin admin@nightlighthosts.com Reply-To: Discussion about the virtualization on CentOS centos-virt@centos.org To: centos-virt@centos.org Subject: [CentOS-virt] Hey
Just want to let you guys know that, although it may have been around for a bit, bringing Xen back to CentOS is awesome and I really appreciate it. I was very disappointed when RedHat dropped support as Xen is awesome.
Thanks for the effort! _______________________________________________ CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
I have used xen over kvm and others for a while. It was what I just started using first years ago. With Xen I could manage domains and my system seemed like a real server. KVM just seemed like a command line trick to me. (I know it is not especially since its integration into the kernel.)
xenserver is pretty sweet and there are some big products built around it. Citrix loves it too. OpenStack is neat: http://www.xenproject.org/presentations-and-videos/video/xpus13-rackspace.ht...
I was disappointed when redhat dropped xen :/ I mean now there is an entire project around keeping xen on centos, etc. This one.....
In the end xen just seemed more strait forward.
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Robert Dinse nanook@eskimo.com wrote:
I've used both Xen and KVM and at least in benchmarks of applications Idid here I didn't see much difference and since KVM is natively supported by RedHat, that's what I've been using.
I used to use Xen. As far as I can tell, I published the first SRPM's for it, back when it was open entirely open source, before Citrix bought it. As far as I can tell, the open source Xen suffers from many of the same problems as KVM and qemu. Namely, the gui and command line tool, "libvirt", is poorly built overburdened debris that does not fulfill *anyone's* standards of a good configuration tool, especially the open source GUI guidelines written by Eric Raymond in his "Luxury of Ignorance" essay.
That said, Xen suffers no more from it than KVM does. It also doesn't have the stunningly painful requirements to override NetworkManager and manually configure the bridge device, as documented by me years ago at at https://wikis.uit.tufts.edu/confluence/display/TUSKpub/Configure+Pair+Bondin....
Obviously on this list there is mostly Xen users, and I feel like I mustbe missing some great advantage so I am curious, those of you who prefer Xen, why?
Personally, I use Virtualbox or corporate supplied VMware these days. Not becuase I don't like open source tools, but because I prefer to spend my subtle confifation time more usefully than working through libvirt and NetworkManager manual, poorly documented, unintegrated confuiguration steps just to get things to work normally.
-
Nico Kadel-Garcia -
NightLightHosts Admin -
Robert Dinse