On 28 March 2012 06:43, Aaron Toponce <aaron.topo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 09:35:25AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote: >> For me, it became yesterday's technology when it became apparent that >> the hypervisor model (putting an entirely new kernel between Linux and >> the hardware) created all sorts of performance problems, and neglected >> the decades of work that had gone into the Linux network stack, amongst >> other parts. Increasingly ugly hacks were (are) needed to pass through >> to the privileged domain, all of which is totally unnecessary with the >> KVM model, where the (much more) tried and tested Linux kernel goes on >> the bottom of the pile. > > Can you expound on these "ugly hacks"? The Xen kernel is a full type-I > hypervisor, with unfettered access to the hardware. The dom0 presents the > virtualized hardware to the domU guests. Using Xen HVM, the presentation > uses Qemu, which is exactly the same for KVM.
You might both be interested in the PDF linked to at the bottom of [1]. It explains why Qubes OS went with Xen and not KVM. I thought it was quite interesting (I used to be firmly in the KVM camp, now I'm not sure any more. :-) ) Mind you, their focus is mainly security. [1] http://www.qubes-os.org/Architecture.html -- 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/cae1poi1umxnt_sdfbndoim10kdgivxnwvya9hohkhjbj7hd...@mail.gmail.com
