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

Re: Xen, Squeeze, and Beyond


----- "Michael Tautschnig" <mt@debian.org> wrote:

> First of all, I'd like to say a big THANKS to all the people
> maintaining Xen
> within (in of course also outside) Debian; you really saved us lots of
> money and
> energy (which is both, electrical and that personal one). 
> [...]
> > 
> > > 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.
> > 
> As I understand the later mails of Bastian and Ian, this is probably
> not an
> issue anyway, but still I'd like to note it: Even though KVM may have
> a
> promising future (on hardware with virtualization support, at least),
> there is a
> serious need for a nice migration path. It seems impossible to
> dist-upgrade to
> squeeze and switch from Xen to KVM at the same time.

Such a migration path already exists: xenner, but it needs to be packaged,
and possibly updated to work with newer Xen hypercalls (such as those introduced
since Xen 3.1).

I am looking into packaging xenner already as a backup plan if I cannot
manage to fix some major reentrancy problems in the Xen dom0 code (Xensource
2.6.18 patches, the pvops stuff has it's own share of problems and needs
more evaluation).


Reply to: