Re: Xen vs KVM
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Hilco Wijbenga
<hilco.wijbenga@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
Thanks for the info.
We'll see if they stick to that decision. Fedora added Xen QA tests
this release cycle (I don't know whether these tests include dom0).
Reply to: