FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-30-2012, 05:59 AM
Tom H
 
Default Xen vs KVM

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.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: CAOdo=Sx1NuvcqchCYeQ0Urx0VBt0YC4sO7fxkXrye7cOShFU5 w@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=Sx1NuvcqchCYeQ0Urx0VBt0YC4sO7fxkXrye7cOShFU5 w@mail.gmail.com
 
Old 03-30-2012, 07:13 AM
Hilco Wijbenga
 
Default Xen vs KVM

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.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: CAE1pOi2xCrw=GR+tGymkojW6a9woNSESaQE74yve14UmTO5Xa A@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/CAE1pOi2xCrw=GR+tGymkojW6a9woNSESaQE74yve14UmTO5Xa A@mail.gmail.com
 
Old 03-30-2012, 09:13 AM
"Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)"
 
Default Xen vs KVM

On 29/03/2012 00:44, Hilco Wijbenga wrote:

On 28 March 2012 06:43, Aaron Toponce<aaron.toponce@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 09:35:25AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:

For me, it became yesterday's technology when it became apparent that
the hypervisor model (putting an entirely new kernel between Linux and
the hardware) created all sorts of performance problems, and neglected
the decades of work that had gone into the Linux network stack, amongst
other parts. Increasingly ugly hacks were (are) needed to pass through
to the privileged domain, all of which is totally unnecessary with the
KVM model, where the (much more) tried and tested Linux kernel goes on
the bottom of the pile.

Can you expound on these "ugly hacks"? The Xen kernel is a full type-I
hypervisor, with unfettered access to the hardware. The dom0 presents the
virtualized hardware to the domU guests. Using Xen HVM, the presentation
uses Qemu, which is exactly the same for KVM.

You might both be interested in the PDF linked to at the bottom of
[1]. It explains why Qubes OS went with Xen and not KVM. I thought it
was quite interesting (I used to be firmly in the KVM camp, now I'm
not sure any more. :-) ) Mind you, their focus is mainly security.

[1] http://www.qubes-os.org/Architecture.html




So Xen has better security than Linux KVM?

--
Yours sincerely,

Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
Singapore


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Archive: 4F757941.6030605@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/4F757941.6030605@gmail.com
 
Old 03-30-2012, 09:23 AM
"Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)"
 
Default Xen vs KVM

On 30/03/2012 00:32, francis picabia wrote:

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Hilco Wijbenga
<hilco.wijbenga@gmail.com> wrote:

On 28 March 2012 06:43, Aaron Toponce<aaron.toponce@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 09:35:25AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:

For me, it became yesterday's technology when it became apparent that
the hypervisor model (putting an entirely new kernel between Linux and
the hardware) created all sorts of performance problems, and neglected
the decades of work that had gone into the Linux network stack, amongst
other parts. Increasingly ugly hacks were (are) needed to pass through
to the privileged domain, all of which is totally unnecessary with the
KVM model, where the (much more) tried and tested Linux kernel goes on
the bottom of the pile.

Can you expound on these "ugly hacks"? The Xen kernel is a full type-I
hypervisor, with unfettered access to the hardware. The dom0 presents the
virtualized hardware to the domU guests. Using Xen HVM, the presentation
uses Qemu, which is exactly the same for KVM.

You might both be interested in the PDF linked to at the bottom of
[1]. It explains why Qubes OS went with Xen and not KVM. I thought it
was quite interesting (I used to be firmly in the KVM camp, now I'm
not sure any more. :-) ) Mind you, their focus is mainly security.

[1] http://www.qubes-os.org/Architecture.html


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.



My Xen kernels (3.x) did not crash on me.

--
Yours sincerely,

Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
Singapore


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Archive: 4F757B80.3000803@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/4F757B80.3000803@gmail.com
 
Old 03-30-2012, 09:24 AM
"Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)"
 
Default Xen vs KVM

On 30/03/2012 13:34, wlan wrote:
On my job we using KVM+Proxmox, This is pretty.



2012/3/30 Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) <ubuntu.fan.2012@gmail.com>

On
28/03/2012 16:36, Jon Dowland wrote:


On 28/03/12 01:32, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:


I am also in favor of Xen.




You have just said, not two messages ago, that you've never
even tried KVM. *I always prefer to base my opinions on
evidence, personally.








Yes, I have never tried Linux KVM. But I have tried VirtualBox
and VMware.




--

Yours sincerely,



Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)

Singapore





--

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org


Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4F7544A2.90606@gmail.com










May I know what is Proxmox?

--
Yours sincerely,

Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
Singapore
 
Old 03-30-2012, 09:27 AM
"Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)"
 
Default Xen vs KVM

On 30/03/2012 13:59, Tom H 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.



Do you know when RHEL 7 might be released?

--
Yours sincerely,

Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
Singapore


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Archive: 4F757C72.4080003@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/4F757C72.4080003@gmail.com
 
Old 03-30-2012, 09:30 AM
Andrei POPESCU
 
Default Xen vs KVM

On Vi, 30 mar 12, 17:24:55, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:

[snipped 38 lines]

> May I know what is Proxmox?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=proxmox

Kind regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
 
Old 03-30-2012, 09:54 AM
Jon Dowland
 
Default Xen vs KVM

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 05:27:14PM +0800, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
> Do you know when RHEL 7 might be released?

Take a look at when RHEL 6 came out (very recently) and how long the gap
between RHEL releases is on average (large) and extrapolate (not for years).


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120330095442.GD3706@debian">http://lists.debian.org/20120330095442.GD3706@debian
 
Old 03-30-2012, 10:54 AM
Jon Dowland
 
Default Xen vs KVM

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 01:27:34PM +0800, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
> I beg to differ. Xen virtualization offers superior performance.

I say one thing, you say another. Neither of us are providing any evidence
to the discussion (thus far) apart from my anecdotal evidence, where I get
more than 100 KVM-powered VMs onto one of my hosts, and I couldn't get more
than ~20 Xen-powered VMs onto a similarly-specced host, a year or so prior.
The limitation was tool-based, I think, that is bugs in Xen's management
tools. This isn't really sufficient to further the discussion.

> Oracle VirtualBox and Virtual Iron and also Microsoft's Hyper-V is
> based on Xen code I think.

This has no bearing on the relative performance merits of Xen vs. KVM.

(FWIW, I think you're wrong re VirtualBox, but Oracle do develop a branded
product based on Xen called Oracle VM, formerly Sun xVM. I'm fairly sure
that Hyper-V was developed independently from Xen, but it certainly supports
some kind-of interoperation with Xen interfaces for guests.)


--
Jon Dowland


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120330105422.GF3706@debian">http://lists.debian.org/20120330105422.GF3706@debian
 
Old 03-30-2012, 11:36 AM
Mika Suomalainen
 
Default Xen vs KVM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

I just got interested about virtualization and noticed that this
thread is still going on.

As far as I can see, most people are currently recommending Xen.

Are there any GUIs or WebUIs for Xen or KVM and how do they work?

- --
Mika Suomalainen
> gpg --keyserver pool.sks-keyservers.net --recv-keys
> 4DB53CFE82A46728 Key fingerprint = 24BC 1573 B8EE D666 D10A AA65
> 4DB5 3CFE 82A4 6728
>> NOTE: The old key (62FE66853913CB03) expires on 03.04.2012!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPdZq9AAoJEE21PP6CpGco+VAP/0Tc7CMvkY0Na7WmPnBzXmrj
5WnzJUktcOnUoabywToaunV8CU+fFEO4ab9KLdM3VSa+VOmMxY JsJ1bhsUrAWrjr
xo3g9qub9DpRNu0AkSCNIbjWg4mHUTAQOg1L/Y+Vc4/SZUhUR2E/M+sPOGtU0sqS
qa0m7CiEh3bMkRR7CgtuLxNyc1a4K2tRvbPSOrUcplN39+B0cV ME6kSGfSzX/dR2
XiC/qLp73hrxfVWMAHIkSK3Rwltv25W0/CwJ1B5v6/k5uYDkniwtFeNW0+nxp6T0
RzMc6Hlt1+kGDUro09K9KVPdZU09nhzNvOvPWBXa7u3OJ6CXJC XHf1aUjxF4fdNG
gbD/UNbasr5ZgMDIO/OTeUlfva5NZDDG8nnqnEb8d5WgxXY1+dSpgqvy4hml+1QA
1lDDfJDI05+hUuAnMYf4+U0IakP/+33QDfaq0L+cZzJxpYtPm9cjmzWZ2BJs4yFB
bpCgCHOi9kn6P7e8JXgvPcssWpHmlgguY5q61GCDeXqqpOUFc8 eiJVgAXWKgWIFQ
VDj+faMPX22CGUTd55TwHlDfsQ+GdwRVwMi48iPxQFmTvMPZIt d2LJs06jfJB13I
hahAFIW7mS3FglvUEOSubys1tNaFbZj76CGOG+2iBx+FEte9I3 Jzya5HK39p5pyf
yERMnnKLoM/hb2PEj/d2
=MIHu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4F759AC0.3070204@hotmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/4F759AC0.3070204@hotmail.com
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:06 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org