I am also in favor of Xen.
Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
On 28/03/2012 02:51, Kostas Psilopoulos wrote:
> Just proposing my opinion in this topic.
> I'm in favor of XEN especially in use with debian. Most reasons have
> already been discused
> but i'd like to add that xen is type 1 hypervisor. The very nature of
> Xen is completely different than
> KVM. It supports the widest variety of operating systems (not that KVM
> does not support them,
> but just comparing their performance...). One thing that might be
> slight better in favor of
> KVM is sometimes when the guest OS uses the same kernel with the host.
> this happens because the host
> does not generate everything from scratch (or sth like that). Anyway
> the difference in performance i think is
> minor. Everyone should experiment with both virtualization types
> because both Xen and KVM are at least well supported.
> The specific needs of the usecase should lead you to the choice to be
> Best regards!
> > Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:55:31 +0800
> > From: ***@gmail.com
> > To: ***@gmail.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;
> > Subject: Re: Xen vs KVM
> > On 27/03/2012 21:32, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 09:51:28AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 01:04:57PM +0800, Teo En Ming (Zhang
> Enming) wrote:
> > >>> When will Debian 7.0 be released? Debian with Linux Kernel 3.x
> > >>> release seems very slow when all the other Linux distros already
> > >>> have the latest Linux Kernel 3.x. Why do I want Linux Kernel 3.x?
> > >>> Because I want to play around with Xen virtualization (dom0
> > >>> required).
> > >> So you want a cutting-edge kernel to play with yesterday's
> > >> technology? The mind boggles! Debian 6.0 has KVM, libvirt,
> > > How is Xen yesterday's virtualization technology? It's fully
> supported by
> > > Citrix XenServer and Oracle VM. Sun used it for the basis of their xVM
> > > solution, and Virtual Iron used Xen for the basis of theirs as
> well (both
> > > of whom were purchased by Oracle).
> > >
> > > Some will say that Xen is more stable than KVM. After being a RHEL and
> > > Debian system administrator, and deploying KVM with both the
> > > RHEV product, and with libvrt(8) and virt-manager(1), I think I
> agree. I've
> > > had the hypervisor kernel do some wacky stuff with KVM that I
> haven't seen
> > > with Xen. With that said, my heart belongs to KVM, I just wish it
> had a bit
> > > more stability.
> > >
> > > Xen also has a longer history of 3rd party support, and has had a
> > > time to mature. It was just recently accepted into the mainline Linux
> > > kernel, and still shows very active development. Xen also supports
> > > virtualization and paravirtualization.
> > >
> > > IMO, Xen isn't "yesterday's virtualization technology". It's very
> > > stable, flexible, supported and very much "today's virtualization
> > > technology".
> > >
> > > --
> > > . o . o . o . . o o . . . o .
> > > . . o . o o o . o . o o . . o
> > > o o o . o . . o o o o . o o o
> > Dear Aaron,
> > I agree with you.
> > Anyway, I have never used Linux KVM before. I have always supported
> > since 3 years ago.
> > --
> > Yours sincerely,
> > Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
> > Singapore
> > --
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
> > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> > Archive: http://firstname.lastname@example.org