On Thursday 14 January 2010 10:25:35 Mark Allums wrote: > On 1/14/2010 4:28 AM, Michal wrote: > >> You need to say what you're using them for. Otherwise people who > >> have experience with vserver will say it rocks, people who use openvz > >> will say that rocks, and people using Xen will say that's even better. > > If you are forced to run Windows, the commercial virtualization choices > might be better---VMware or Virtualbox. Virtualbox is nice because it > is rapidly improving all the time and it has an open source free version. Xen also supports running unmodified guest OSes. I happen to be close to a project that is running 2-4 Windows guests on top of a 2 node Xen cluster in ~3000 separate locations. The Xen currently packaged with Debian may or may not have this feature out of the box. I believe the project is using a for-pay version of Xen. > If you are only running Linux or BSD, then Xen, KVM, QEMU-kvm or QEMU > w/kqemu, vserver, openvz, all have their merits. Qemu and it's variants (KVM, Qemu using the KVM kernel interface, Qemu using the kqemu kernel interface) all support running unmodified guest OSes, so they could be used for MS Windows. With most Qemu-based solutions, clustering, migration, load-balancing, etc. are of the roll-your own variety. That's not necessarily bad, but it does mean you'll need an adventuresome technical staff and a little time and hardware for experimenting; I don't know of COTS PnP solutions in that space. The main advantages to VServer and OpenVZ are that they can generally have more guests on the same about of hardware, because they don't do "full" virtualization. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.