On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 03:46:43PM -0700, Gordon Messmer wrote: > A late reply, but hopefully a useful set of feedback for the archives: > > On 04/20/2012 05:59 AM, Rafa?? Radecki wrote: > > Key factors from my opint of view are: > > - stability (which one runs more smoothly on CentOS?) > > I found that xenconsoled could frequently crash in Xen dom0, and that > guests would be unable to reboot until it was fixed. I also found that > paravirt CentOS domUs would not boot if they were updated before the > dom0. > This was a problem in RHEL5/CentOS5 Xen. It was fixed in upstream Xen years ago. I think it was fixed finally in RHEL5/CentOS5 Xen in 5.7 or 5.8. The workaround was to simply kill+restart xenconsoled. No reboot required. Also I think the xenconsoled bug only happened on 32bit hosts. > In short, Xen paravirt was very fragile and troublesome. I never > tested Xen with hardware virtualization. > Xen PV has been rock solid for me :) > I have had no such problems with KVM. In my experience KVM is much more > stable than Xen paravirtualization. Xen HVM probably would suffer at > least some of the same problems. > You should compare Xen HVM with KVM, and you said you haven't been running Xen HVM. > > There have been bugs that allow guests to escalate privileges and access > host resources, but they're relatively few. I don't think there's a > significant difference between the two in this area. > > Overall I advise the use of KVM. It should be more stable, and has the > advantage of Red Hat support. > Xen is supported by Red Hat support in RHEL5. -- Pasi