Re: Xen vs KVM
On 28 March 2012 06:43, Aaron Toponce <aaron.toponce@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 09:35:25AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
>> For me, it became yesterday's technology when it became apparent that
>> the hypervisor model (putting an entirely new kernel between Linux and
>> the hardware) created all sorts of performance problems, and neglected
>> the decades of work that had gone into the Linux network stack, amongst
>> other parts. Increasingly ugly hacks were (are) needed to pass through
>> to the privileged domain, all of which is totally unnecessary with the
>> KVM model, where the (much more) tried and tested Linux kernel goes on
>> the bottom of the pile.
>
> Can you expound on these "ugly hacks"? The Xen kernel is a full type-I
> hypervisor, with unfettered access to the hardware. The dom0 presents the
> virtualized hardware to the domU guests. Using Xen HVM, the presentation
> uses Qemu, which is exactly the same for KVM.
You might both be interested in the PDF linked to at the bottom of
[1]. It explains why Qubes OS went with Xen and not KVM. I thought it
was quite interesting (I used to be firmly in the KVM camp, now I'm
not sure any more. :-) ) Mind you, their focus is mainly security.
[1] http://www.qubes-os.org/Architecture.html
Reply to: