Virt-manager at Xen 3.2.1 Dom0 F8 (64-bit)
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dba477 Jun 06, 2008 11:30 PM EDT |
It works fine as well after install described in the posting |
| azerthoth Jun 07, 2008 8:57 AM EDT |
OK, I have a question for other virtualizers out there. I have used QEMU, KVM, VMware, and Virtualbox for running up my own VMs. Some of these have the option to daemonize their child VM's and allow them to run as fully functional servers/hosts for the traditional hit to resources. Some solutions require more resources than others to perform exactly the same task. With that in mind, my question is this. Is Xen, with its requirement of a custom kernel and archaic configuration controls even a viable option any longer. In other words, with all the other solutions out there now, does Xen even matter? |
| dba477 Jun 07, 2008 11:12 PM EDT |
I would say that HVM DomUs are not Xen's strength, regardless benchmarks for SNV90 HVM at Xen 3.2.1 F8 Dom0 and SNV89 KVM on F9 (both 64 bit) are pretty close. I mean fork_100 Sun's test. Neither one of systems mentioned by you does paravirtualization. I guess Xen's advantage is para virtual guests. SNV89 PVM at Xen 3.2.1 F8 Dom0 operates 4-5 times faster then SNV89 KVM (QEMU) on F8 (F9) with regular kernel on the same box (multibooting). Hardware been used for benchmarking :- C2D E8400, ASUS P5K Premium/WI-FI, 4 GB RAM. Why would fedora team work so hard on PV_OPS implementation at Dom0 scheduled for F10 ? Your guess RH is wasting time and money ? :-) Next question is Solaris xVM (Xen bits 3.1.4) : - Why would Sun , company for years targeting enterprise, do that ? |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!