Re: [Hampshire] Base OS for Xen

Top Page
Author: Hugo Mills
Date:  
To: adam.trickett, Hampshire LUG Discussion List
CC: Andy Smith
Subject: Re: [Hampshire] Base OS for Xen

Reply to this message
gpg: failed to create temporary file '/var/lib/lurker/.#lk0x58123100.hantslug.org.uk.24042': Permission denied
gpg: keyblock resource '/var/lib/lurker/pubring.gpg': Permission denied
gpg: Signature made Wed Jul 15 13:10:46 2009 BST
gpg: using DSA key 20ACB3BE515C238D
gpg: Can't check signature: No public key
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 12:58:34PM +0100, Adam Trickett wrote:
> On Wednesday 15 Jul 2009, Andy Smith wrote:
> > In my experience KVM has the most chance of not encountering bizarre
> > problems that no upstream can/will take on. I believe Bytemark are
> > using it for their VM offering now, which was a big milestone.
>
> KVM is interesting, it's in the mainline kernel and Xen is not. The firm
> behind KVM is now part of Red Hat and the firm behind Xen is Citrix (a
> big Microsoft partner).


There's quite a lot of Xen support in the kernel. It's not all in,
and there has recently been a big argument on the linux-kernel list
about the proposed changes for dom0 support.

> The userland part of KVM is mostly Qemu which is pretty mature already


Xen also uses qemu for its device emulation.

> so I'd say that while KVM is very new, it has grown up quickly and it's
> still moving forward. I get the feeling that Xen is losing ground and
> going out of fashion.


It's got significant problems, I think: architecturally, in terms
of usability, and apparently also in the development process.

> I think ByteMark went from User Mode Linux to KVM for their virtual
> systems and now deploy KVM rather than Xen as their default way of
> chopping a new system up. I gather that KVM is easier to work with - but
> that's just a feeling I have no objective data to back it up.


I've used Xen, VMWare, KVM and (k)qemu on various systems in the
past. Of those, Xen was by far the hardest to get going sensibly.
I've had some issues with VMWare not keeping their kernel module
sources up to date with the latest kernel, requiring patches. kqemu
didn't like running 64-bit guests on 64-bit hosts last time I tried
(and when I reported the problem, got told to get out my debugger and
get to work).

These experiences are all somewhat out of date, so the situation
may have changed with some/all of them, but for a personal preference,
I'd opt for using kvm (if hardware permits) or qemu+kqemu.

Hugo.

--
=== Hugo Mills: hugo@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk ===
PGP key: 515C238D from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk
--- Hey, Virtual Memory! Now I can have a *really big* ramdisk! ---