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

Re: Xen, Squeeze, and Beyond

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

> 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.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: