On 30/03/12 12:54, Jon Dowland wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 01:27:34PM +0800, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
I beg to differ. Xen virtualization offers superior performance.
I say one thing, you say another. Neither of us are providing any evidence
to the discussion (thus far) apart from my anecdotal evidence, where I get
more than 100 KVM-powered VMs onto one of my hosts, and I couldn't get more
than ~20 Xen-powered VMs onto a similarly-specced host, a year or so prior.
The limitation was tool-based, I think, that is bugs in Xen's management
tools. This isn't really sufficient to further the discussion.
Oracle VirtualBox and Virtual Iron and also Microsoft's Hyper-V is
based on Xen code I think.
This has no bearing on the relative performance merits of Xen vs. KVM.
(FWIW, I think you're wrong re VirtualBox, but Oracle do develop a branded
product based on Xen called Oracle VM, formerly Sun xVM. I'm fairly sure
that Hyper-V was developed independently from Xen, but it certainly supports
some kind-of interoperation with Xen interfaces for guests.)
For heaven's sake, it is perfectly evident that this guy (Zhang Enming)
is setting up as a troll. Admittedly, he's doing it quite well, but
let's stop responding to his ranting, and he'll get bored.
Just IMHO!
--
Tony van der Hoff | mailto:t...@vanderhoff.org
Ariège, France |
--
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/4f75e8d8.20...@vanderhoff.org
