On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com > wrote:
> On 02/01/2016 02:27 PM, PGNet Dev wrote: > >> On 02/01/2016 11:14 AM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >> >>> Is 'HVMLite' replacing 'PVH'? Or are they separate modes? >>>> >>> >>> Yes, HVMlite is replacing PVH. Probably once we get dom0 support. >>> >> >> If that's a 'done deal', and it sounds like it is, it'd be useful to have >> it integrated into: >> >> http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Understanding_the_Virtualization_Spectrum >> >> particularly as there's no mention of HVMlite on the wiki, at all. >> > Thanks, HVMlite is new to me. I created the Xen modes diagram on this page (based on the older modes diagram; if anyone wants the new omnigraffle source, email me), and I just created a Xen wiki account so I can update this page. I've been meaning to update this modes diagram anyway, and improve the columns. > HVMlite is very new: domU hypervisor support has been added less than two > months ago and Linux patches are being reviewed as we speak (FreeBSD, I > believe, is supported). > > >> It's unclear whether PVH, in its current dev state (at least here), is >> worth-the-visit -- especially if HVMlite is "ComingSoon(tm)". >> >> I suppose I'm looking for some guidance as to which to invest time in >> while on Xen 4.6.0, ack'ing that neither PVH nor HVMlite are >> production-ready. >> > > Current PVH implementation has never been described as production-ready. > What is happening now with HVMlite is essentially bringing PVH to > production-quality level. So should I s/PVH/HVMlite/g? Or too much of a simlification? thanks, Brendan -- Brendan Gregg, Senior Performance Architect, Netflix
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
