[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Pkg-xen-devel] Xen status in lenny?

Goswin von Brederlow dijo [Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:10:30PM +0200]:
> > I don't think that any of the alternatives are valid candidates yet:
> > - Linux-Vserver, OpenVZ: clearly not the same use case.
> > - Virtualbox, qemu: poor performance under some workloads.
> Unusable for production work. Emulation is just too slow. The group of
> people that can live with that much slow down compared to xen is
> miniscule.

Just to state the obvious: I understand your lines applie to
virtualbox and qemu, not to linux-vserver, which is completely usable
for production work - although it's a completely different approach,
completely useless to people who really want seemingly independent
full machines (i.e. different OSs or kernel features). 

> > - KVM: is very promising but is it really a valid alternative *now*
> >   for current Xen users?
> KVM needs hardware support and even then its I/O is slower. It also
> deadlocks the I/O under I/O load from time to time.
> I could live with the I/O slowdown but nothing will make hardware
> magically appear.

Please explain further on this. Do you mean that xen can run
paravirtualized hosts without the hardware features (i.e. the lesser
CPUs sold nowadays) while kvm does require VMX/SVM?

I have not done extensive testing yet (I'm a newbie to both
approaches), but I don't feel the slowdown you mention when under kvm.


Gunnar Wolf - gwolf@gwolf.org - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973  F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF

Reply to: