On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 08:39:48AM +0200, Etzion Bar-Noy wrote:
> Notice, again, that KVM is VDI-focused, and as the battle in the server
This statement is as far from the truth as it could get. There is nothing VDIish
in KVM.
> virtualization rages between the leading commercial vendors, the VDI
2010/1/20 Muli Ben-Yehuda :
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:04:31AM +0200, Etzion Bar-Noy wrote:
>> KVM was designed, and is focused on VDI - desktop virtualization,
>> being the focus of Kumranet in the past. RedHat cannot maintain two
>> virtualization platforms.
>
> Again, that's wrong. KVM was not
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:04:31AM +0200, Etzion Bar-Noy wrote:
> PV drivers were released by Oracle, who run their own virtualization
> platform based on XenCommunity.
>
> KVM is wasteful and requires VT support even for Linux machines. Not
> only that, but its virtualized hardware is legacy old
2010/1/20 Gilad Ben-Yossef :
> Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
>
> Jonathan Ben Avraham writes:
>
>
>
> Hi Gilad,
> Why do you recommend KVM over XEN? Have you fiddled with both? Are
> there particular problems with XEN?
>
>
> Apart from the fact that XEN is paravirtualization technology and
> running a mi
Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
Jonathan Ben Avraham writes:
Hi Gilad,
Why do you recommend KVM over XEN? Have you fiddled with both? Are
there particular problems with XEN?
Apart from the fact that XEN is paravirtualization technology and
running a mission-critical Windows DomU is possible
Interesting.
I am planning to test KVM as soon as we get some time to look at it
(it's a "technology preview" in 5.4, newspeak for "beta").
My take on the short history of KVM/Kumranet/RedHat is that since
Citrix owns Xen, RedHat had to jump ship to another technology to
avoid dependency on a com
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:46:00PM +1100, Amos Shapira wrote:
> I expect this targeting will change quickly since RH plan to replace
> replace Xen by KVM (in 5.5 or 6.0?)
RH already included KVM in RHEL 5.4, and will of course continue to
include, sell, and support it with RHEL 5.5 and 5.6. Ubunt
True indeed.
XenCommunity is a fine option, which I have found to be good. I have been
running a bunch of servers on it, from a single VM on a physical server (to
achieve the management benefits with the very minimalistic loss of Xen) to
several tenths of VMs on a server in several farms abroad. I
2010/1/20 Etzion Bar-Noy :
> PV drivers were released by Oracle, who run their own virtualization
> platform based on XenCommunity.
Just wondering - are these required to be installed separately when
trying to run Windows on CentOS?
We generally managed to do that when we tried (got stuck on none
PV drivers were released by Oracle, who run their own virtualization
platform based on XenCommunity.
KVM is wasteful and requires VT support even for Linux machines. Not only
that, but its virtualized hardware is legacy old hardware supplied by QEMU.
The leading virtualization solutions currently
Jonathan Ben Avraham writes:
> Hi Gilad,
> Why do you recommend KVM over XEN? Have you fiddled with both? Are
> there particular problems with XEN?
Apart from the fact that XEN is paravirtualization technology and
running a mission-critical Windows DomU is possible mostly in theory?
Disclaimer:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 02:26:15PM +0200, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
> Jonathan Ben Avraham wrote:
>
>> Hi Gilad,
>> Why do you recommend KVM over XEN? Have you fiddled with both? Are
>> there particular problems with XEN?
> No practical experience.
>
> From a design standpoint, it's architecture is
Jonathan Ben Avraham wrote:
Hi Gilad,
Why do you recommend KVM over XEN? Have you fiddled with both? Are
there particular problems with XEN?
No practical experience.
From a design standpoint, it's architecture is overly complex and this
is very evident when you use it.
It is STILL not in th
mailing list ,
Oleg Kovalev
Subject: Re: better platform for virtualization
Hi,
Michael Lewinger wrote:
I'd like to ask your oppinion on the virtualization of several WINDOWS
servers installed on a client's medium business server room. There are
about 6 crucial servers
Hi,
Michael Lewinger wrote:
I'd like to ask your oppinion on the virtualization of several WINDOWS
servers installed on a client's medium business server room. There are
about 6 crucial servers (priority, exchange, file server, and some
others) that need to be accessible when they fail. C
oops, I post it to Michael & not to the list
Shahar
- Original Message -
From: Shahar Dag
To: Michael Lewinger
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: better platform for virtualization
Hello Michael
I once took a course about Windows 2008 servers (but I am no
On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 17:49 +0200, Michael Lewinger wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I'd like to ask your oppinion on the virtualization of several WINDOWS
> servers installed on a client's medium business server room. There are
> about 6 crucial servers (priority, exchange, file server, and some
> others)
Hi there,
I'd like to ask your oppinion on the virtualization of several WINDOWS
servers installed on a client's medium business server room. There are about
6 crucial servers (priority, exchange, file server, and some others) that
need to be accessible when they fail. Currently, each server has i
18 matches
Mail list logo
