Xen vs KVM (was: When will Debian 7.0 with Linux Kernel 3.x be Released?)
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 09:51:28AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 01:04:57PM +0800, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
> > When will Debian 7.0 be released? Debian with Linux Kernel 3.x
> > release seems very slow when all the other Linux distros already
> > have the latest Linux Kernel 3.x. Why do I want Linux Kernel 3.x?
> > Because I want to play around with Xen virtualization (dom0
> > required).
> So you want a cutting-edge kernel to play with yesterday's virtualisation
> technology? The mind boggles! Debian 6.0 has KVM, libvirt, virt-managerâ€¦
How is Xen yesterday's virtualization technology? It's fully supported by
Citrix XenServer and Oracle VM. Sun used it for the basis of their xVM
solution, and Virtual Iron used Xen for the basis of theirs as well (both
of whom were purchased by Oracle).
Some will say that Xen is more stable than KVM. After being a RHEL and
Debian system administrator, and deploying KVM with both the commercial
RHEV product, and with libvrt(8) and virt-manager(1), I think I agree. I've
had the hypervisor kernel do some wacky stuff with KVM that I haven't seen
with Xen. With that said, my heart belongs to KVM, I just wish it had a bit
Xen also has a longer history of 3rd party support, and has had a longer
time to mature. It was just recently accepted into the mainline Linux
kernel, and still shows very active development. Xen also supports full
virtualization and paravirtualization.
IMO, Xen isn't "yesterday's virtualization technology". It's very current,
stable, flexible, supported and very much "today's virtualization
. o . o . o . . o o . . . o .
. . o . o o o . o . o o . . o
o o o . o . . o o o o . o o o