Just proposing my opinion in this topic.
I'm in favor of XEN especially in use with debian. Most reasons
have already been discused
but i'd like to add that xen is type 1 hypervisor. The very
nature of Xen is completely different than
KVM. It supports the widest variety of operating systems (not
that KVM does not support them,
but just comparing their performance...). One thing that might
be slight better in favor of
KVM is sometimes when the guest OS uses the same kernel with the
host. this happens because the host
does not generate everything from scratch (or sth like that).
Anyway the difference in performance i think is
minor. Everyone should experiment with both virtualization types
because both Xen and KVM are at least well supported.
The specific needs of the usecase should lead you to the choice
to be made!
> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:55:31 +0800
> From:
ubuntu.fan.2012@gmail.com
> To:
aaron.toponce@gmail.com;
debian-user@lists.debian.org;
singapore.mr.teo.en.ming@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: Xen vs KVM
>
> On 27/03/2012 21:32, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 09:51:28AM +0100, Jon
Dowland wrote:
> >> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 01:04:57PM +0800, Teo En
Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
> >>> When will Debian 7.0 be released? Debian
with Linux Kernel 3.x
> >>> release seems very slow when all the other
Linux distros already
> >>> have the latest Linux Kernel 3.x. Why do I
want Linux Kernel 3.x?
> >>> Because I want to play around with Xen
virtualization (dom0
> >>> required).
> >> So you want a cutting-edge kernel to play with
yesterday's virtualisation
> >> technology? The mind boggles! Debian 6.0 has
KVM, libvirt, virt-manager…
> > How is Xen yesterday's virtualization technology?
It's fully supported by
> > Citrix XenServer and Oracle VM. Sun used it for the
basis of their xVM
> > solution, and Virtual Iron used Xen for the basis of
theirs as well (both
> > of whom were purchased by Oracle).
> >
> > Some will say that Xen is more stable than KVM.
After being a RHEL and
> > Debian system administrator, and deploying KVM with
both the commercial
> > RHEV product, and with libvrt(8) and
virt-manager(1), I think I agree. I've
> > had the hypervisor kernel do some wacky stuff with
KVM that I haven't seen
> > with Xen. With that said, my heart belongs to KVM, I
just wish it had a bit
> > more stability.
> >
> > Xen also has a longer history of 3rd party support,
and has had a longer
> > time to mature. It was just recently accepted into
the mainline Linux
> > kernel, and still shows very active development. Xen
also supports full
> > virtualization and paravirtualization.
> >
> > IMO, Xen isn't "yesterday's virtualization
technology". It's very current,
> > stable, flexible, supported and very much "today's
virtualization
> > technology".
> >
> > --
> > . o . o . o . . o o . . . o .
> > . . o . o o o . o . o o . . o
> > o o o . o . . o o o o . o o o
>
> Dear Aaron,
>
> I agree with you.
>
> Anyway, I have never used Linux KVM before. I have always
supported Xen,
> since 3 years ago.
>
> --
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
> Singapore
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive:
[🔎] 4F71FF13.505@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/
[🔎] 4F71FF13.505@gmail.com
>