[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Xen vs KVM



i am using proxmox KVM.. on 3 base servers for more then 2 years.
i do migrate, backup and all the process intensive task and every
thing. till today i havent found any issue related to stabitliy.
once i remeber i havent started my virtual machines for 4 monts,and my
base, i never found a reason to restart the base server for about a
year. but then my HD died :(.
my virtual base is running more then 15 VMs. i haven't tried Xen yet
so nothing to add about stability in Xen.


Thanks,

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:23 PM, francis picabia <fpicabia@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 2:59 AM, Tom H <tomh0665@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> This is uninformed.  I don't know why you bother to write it.
>
> Please visit the Redhat web site and search for information on virtualization.
>
> Here is one of the many news items one can google showing Redhat
> has dropped Xen in favour of KVM.  KVM is the cornerstone of Redhat's
> attempt to compete with VMware solution.  Xen support in Redhat
> is set to expire in 2014.
>
> http://www.infoworld.com/d/virtualization/red-hat-drops-xen-in-favor-kvm-in-rhel-6-498
>
> Here is the 2008 announcement regarding Redhat's purchase of Qumaranet, which
> may answer some questions about xen and kvm in Redhat's future (now
> the present).
>
> http://www.redhat.com/promo/qumranet/
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: [🔎] CA+AKB6GOUJtbDMMZBaEeZc-fyqK_-6cNu4S6fo-PeH74O+BJwg@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/[🔎] CA+AKB6GOUJtbDMMZBaEeZc-fyqK_-6cNu4S6fo-PeH74O+BJwg@mail.gmail.com
>


Reply to: