On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 6:23 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Alan Hodgson <ahodgson at simkin.ca> wrote: >> On November 26, 2010 11:25:06 am Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: >>> KVM, itself, was unusable in my testing due to the "bridged network" >>> mishandling and its complete lack of a concept of failover for network >>> issues, particularly pair bonding for the server itself. PXE for the >>> clients was unusable, and it ran like a dyslexic on too many opiates, >>> slow, twitchy, and unpredicatable. >> >> The UI in RHEL 5/CentOS 5 is definitely very limited, but KVM does work with >> all these things under the hood. In particular KVM seems to run fine on top of >> a simple host bridge, which can in turn rely on a bonded interface. I have had >> no problems with boot support, although I confess I don't use PXE - DHCP and >> kickstart over the LAN work fine, though. > > It is not merely "limited". > > PXE is very common for server installations of brand new hardware, or > for remote KVM managed hardware, to avoid having to pop a CD in it. > It's well undertood, and I got nowhere, even with it for KVM. (VMWare > and Xen worked fine.) interesting. I have a working home lab with KVM and I bootstrap all my vm's from pxe, both win and lin. So I know it works fine. Not managed from the virtual machine manager, though. Next year I will be evaluating it, and it has better support pxe :) -- natxo