Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> I would hope that it actually offers just "faster", but AFAIK that is what
> it doesn't. AFAIK a PV CentOS 5 on Xen runs much better and faster than in
> KVM. Is that true? I've used KVM only once for a non-PV guest (old Suse
> System) and not with the kernel module.
I think
Nate wrote on Thu, 9 Oct 2008 11:36:13 -0700 (PDT):
> ut KVM offers more innovation
> and faster features
I would hope that it actually offers just "faster", but AFAIK that is what
it doesn't. AFAIK a PV CentOS 5 on Xen runs much better and faster than in
KVM. Is that true? I've used KVM only o
James B. Byrne wrote on Thu, 9 Oct 2008 12:27:15 -0400 (EDT):
> Oh well, this was just a trial to see what was involved with virtualization.
James, stop talking to yourself ;-) It's good to look at stock documentation,
but it's not enough. Search this list archive for "xen" and have a look at th
On Thursday 09 October 2008 12:31, nate wrote:
> Now it looks like Red hat has woken up and seen it is
> a dead end too and is moving to KVM as you mentioned.
where did you read this? I have just started with xen too but I don't want to
be left hanging...
James B. Byrne wrote:
> So, on my test machine that supports only paravirtualization I can only
> run 64 bit versions of a supported paravirtualized guest OS. This limits
> me to essentially CentOS-4 and CentOS-5 ix_64. I was hoping to be able to
> run CentOS-5.2 i386 as a guest as there is no 6
5 matches
Mail list logo
