Re: Xen vs KVM
On 29 March 2012 22:59, Tom H <tomh0665@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:32 PM, francis picabia <fpicabia@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Xen requires a patched kernel. It is unstable. It crashed on
>> me randomly before I got as far as configuring any VM stuff.
>> The system which experienced this returned to a standard
>> Debian kernel and never had a problem again.
>>
>> KVM is native part of kernel. It is stable. I've been running on several
>> systems for over a year and no crash.
>>
>> Both share the same qemu devices and drivers land.
>>
>> You can read what IBM has to say about key benefits and security
>> features of kvm...
>>
>> ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/linux/pdfs/LXW03004-USEN-00.pdf
>>
>> A big clue is Redhat is dropping xen virtualization going forward.
>>
>> Kvm will get more development support than xen.
>>
>> I see no reason to even consider xen.
>
> It's something of a stretch to go from "it's unstable for me" to "it's
> unstable for all"... Since RHEL6 was published in November 2010, the
> level of kvm use might have reached or surpassed the level of xen use
> by now but xen's still in heavy use by many...
>
> Unless there's a fedora-devel thread where this was discussed, there's
> probably no way to know why RHEL6 switched to kvm except to assume
> that kvm's in-kernel and xen isn't. This has changed in the latest
> kernels so xen support might very well be re-added, and possibly
> favored, in RHEL7.
RH employs some of the KVM devs. RH apparently has not contributed to
Xen for several years and has now decided to only support a single
code base: KVM. It does not appear to have anything to do with Xen or
its quality/performance/features.
Reply to: