RE: [BLUG] Xen vs. VMWare

Mark Krenz wrote:
> I haven't done any testing with full virtualization yet, but a guy
from
> Red Hat told me that full virtualization is faster on CPU instructions
> and paravirt is faster overall (including I/O).

I haven't used full virt either, but other RHEL .edu folks have told me
that full virt is "significantly slower" than para virt (of course, I
don't have any numbers). AIUI, there's also a 2 GB RAM limit on full
virt Xen VMs (at least in RHEL 5).

> If you want something that makes it easier, you can try CentOS 5 or
> RHEL 5 or Fedora 7, they all have a tool called virt-manager that does
> things graphically. Honestly, I don't like it as well as the xm tool
> because there is some functionality that is missing.

Lots of Red Hat folks seem to be abandoning their work on Xen and
concentrating on KVM. virt-manager is supposed to support it as well,
and I've been told that RH will be making migration tools for a seamless
transition from Xen to KVM. KVM should be in the next major release of
RHEL and is already in Fedora 7.

> So its fast enough to be able to run production websites on. But

We have a handful of Xen VMs that we've been running for a good while.
They're production, but not critical. Had RHEL5 came out on schedule,
we would have ~15 production boxes running in Xen VMs today.

--
Jeremy L. Gaddis
Network Administrator
812.330.6156 (w) 812.391.0358 (m)

_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug