[CentOS-virt] xen 3.2

Grant McWilliams grantmasterflash at gmail.com
Wed Jul 16 14:54:24 UTC 2008

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:59 AM, Rudi Ahlers <Rudi at softdux.com> wrote:

> Grant McWilliams wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Daniel de Kok <me at danieldk.org <mailto:
>> me at danieldk.org>> wrote:
>>    On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Justin Lim <jlim0930 at gmail.com
>>    <mailto:jlim0930 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>    > Any ideal when 3.2 xen will be avail for centos?
>>    When the upstream distribution provides it. I am not sure if it is on
>>    their roadmap. Of course, you could also use Xen 3.2 from XenSource,
>>    but that's not supported here.
>>    Take care,
>>    Daniel
>>    _______________________________________________
>>    CentOS-virt mailing list
>>    CentOS-virt at centos.org <mailto:CentOS-virt at centos.org>
>>    http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
>> I was at a recent Linux convention and it seemed very likely that Xen is
>> no longer Redhat's priority at all and would love to put KVM in it's place.
>> The Redhat rep was very adamant about KVMs superiority over Xen and the
>> amount of unnecessary work to integrate Xen into their kernels. Some day
>> when KVM will actually do what Xen does (and do it reliably!) Xen may not be
>> an easy option.
>> Grant
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
> So are you saying we should start looking at using KVM instead? I've never
> seen it, nor used it, so how much different is it from XEN?
> --
> Kind Regards
> Rudi Ahlers
> Check out my technical blog, http://blog.softdux.com for Linux or other
> technical stuff
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS-virt mailing list
> CentOS-virt at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt

I personally like Xen even though it's a bit difficult sometimes. The
reality is that there  probably will be a "Linux Virtual Machine" and then
there will be the other third party ones that you can run if you want to go
through the trouble. Xen, VMWare, VBox etc.. are third party. KVM is and
will be integrated into the OS and will be everywhere. The amount of work
being done on it is frightening. However, I don't think KVM will ever do
real paravirtualization as they only focus on CPUs with VT support built in.
They do paravirtualize drivers but the rest is roughly equivalent to HVM in
Xen. I don't use KVM in any production environment because it's not always
stable. I don't use it in a development environment because it doesn't do
everything I want. Both of these things will change in the future. Because
of the way the KVM VMs are handled (as tasks) though I'm not sure if it will
ever be very good at having one VM span multiple real pipelines. But then
again I'm not sure how efficient Xen can accomplish this.  I'm working on a
white paper testing the capabilities and speed of the major VM technologies
in various environments but I have several months of testing left before I
will release it. I'll know more when I get more data.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-virt/attachments/20080716/4b4df16a/attachment.htm

More information about the CentOS-virt mailing list