Am 28.07.11 11:23, schrieb Peter Peltonen: > Hi, > > A few more questions :) > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:56 AM, John R. Dennison<jrd at gerdesas.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:53:23AM +0200, Juergen Gotteswinter wrote: >>> >>> i think i am not the only one who wants to stay with with xen :) >> >> Far from it. Xen still has a place as a dom0. > > What are the reasons for people staying with Xen as dom0, just the > learning curve? Or are there some technical considerations as well? > > Are there any good migration guides from xen to KVM? > > Can xen domUs be used with KVM easily? > > I am myself wondering should I learn KVM and go with C6 dom0 or to > stick with C5 for now... > > BR, > Peter > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > my experiences with KVM - overcomittmend possible -> very bad in lots of producation systems - vms run as qemu process which take often lots of more memory then assigned to the vm, which could result in swapping (qemu overhead? dunno...) - performance Issues, espacially io - cli tools arent as easy to use than xm / xl from my point i whould say kvm is great for desktop virtualization, but i whould stay away from it when it comes to server usage. for desktop stuff, xen is bad. For example the nvidia modules wont work with a dom0, with kvm they do. the administration tools (virt-manager) run also on X... pro points for xen - assigned memory for a VM means assigned memory. not more will be used. - no overcommitment possible - great performance, especially with pv guests con points for xen - patched kernel needed (ok, 3.0 includes xen dom0 but not all features) - bad for desktop virtualization just my to cents, others may have better experiences cheers, juergen