I am also in favor of Xen.
--
Yours sincerely,
Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
Singapore
On 28/03/2012 02:51, Kostas Psilopoulos wrote:
Just proposing my opinion in this topic.
I'm in favor of XEN especially in use with debian. Most reasons have
already been discused
but i'd like to add that xen is type 1 hypervisor. The very nature of
Xen is completely different than
KVM. It supports the widest variety of operating systems (not that KVM
does not support them,
but just comparing their performance...). One thing that might be
slight better in favor of
KVM is sometimes when the guest OS uses the same kernel with the host.
this happens because the host
does not generate everything from scratch (or sth like that). Anyway
the difference in performance i think is
minor. Everyone should experiment with both virtualization types
because both Xen and KVM are at least well supported.
The specific needs of the usecase should lead you to the choice to be
made!
Best regards!
> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:55:31 +0800
> From: ubuntu.fan.2...@gmail.com
> To: aaron.topo...@gmail.com; debian-user@lists.debian.org;
singapore.mr.teo.en.m...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: Xen vs KVM
>
> On 27/03/2012 21:32, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 09:51:28AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> >> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 01:04:57PM +0800, Teo En Ming (Zhang
Enming) wrote:
> >>> When will Debian 7.0 be released? Debian with Linux Kernel 3.x
> >>> release seems very slow when all the other Linux distros already
> >>> have the latest Linux Kernel 3.x. Why do I want Linux Kernel 3.x?
> >>> Because I want to play around with Xen virtualization (dom0
> >>> required).
> >> So you want a cutting-edge kernel to play with yesterday's
virtualisation
> >> technology? The mind boggles! Debian 6.0 has KVM, libvirt,
virt-manager…
> > How is Xen yesterday's virtualization technology? It's fully
supported by
> > Citrix XenServer and Oracle VM. Sun used it for the basis of their xVM
> > solution, and Virtual Iron used Xen for the basis of theirs as
well (both
> > of whom were purchased by Oracle).
> >
> > Some will say that Xen is more stable than KVM. After being a RHEL and
> > Debian system administrator, and deploying KVM with both the
commercial
> > RHEV product, and with libvrt(8) and virt-manager(1), I think I
agree. I've
> > had the hypervisor kernel do some wacky stuff with KVM that I
haven't seen
> > with Xen. With that said, my heart belongs to KVM, I just wish it
had a bit
> > more stability.
> >
> > Xen also has a longer history of 3rd party support, and has had a
longer
> > time to mature. It was just recently accepted into the mainline Linux
> > kernel, and still shows very active development. Xen also supports
full
> > virtualization and paravirtualization.
> >
> > IMO, Xen isn't "yesterday's virtualization technology". It's very
current,
> > stable, flexible, supported and very much "today's virtualization
> > technology".
> >
> > --
> > . o . o . o . . o o . . . o .
> > . . o . o o o . o . o o . . o
> > o o o . o . . o o o o . o o o
>
> Dear Aaron,
>
> I agree with you.
>
> Anyway, I have never used Linux KVM before. I have always supported
Xen,
> since 3 years ago.
>
> --
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
> Singapore
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
listmas...@lists.debian.org
> Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f71ff13....@gmail.com
>
