On Feb 25, John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> wrote: > 3) What will be our preferred Linux server virtualization option after > squeeze? Are we confident enough in the stability and performance of > KVM to call it such? (Last I checked, its paravirt support was of Yes. > rather iffy stability and performance, but I could be off.) You are, KVM had huge changes in the last year. > 3a) What about Linux virtualization on servers that lack hardware > virtualization support, which Xen supports but KVM doesn't? Tough luck. > 4) What will be our preferred server virtualization option for non-Linux > guests after squeeze? Still KVM? Yes, virtualized Windows works much better in (modern) KVM than Xen. > 5) Do we recommend that new installations of lenny or of squeeze avoid > Xen for ease of upgrading to squeeze+1? If so, what should they use? It depends. KVM in lenny is buggy and lacks important features. While it works fine for development and casual use I do not recommend using it in production for critical tasks. This is where Red Hat really beats us: RHEL shipped Xen years ago but recently they released an update which provides a backported and stabilized KVM. > 6) Are we communicating this to Debian users in some way? What can I do > to help with this point? Remind people that Xen is dying and KVM is the present and the future. -- ciao, Marco
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature