> > You need to say what you're using them for. Otherwise people who have > experience with vserver will say it rocks, people who use openvz will > say that rocks, and people using Xen will say that's even better. > > If you're using it for something specific then your needs and > preferences will be adjusted accordingly. > > e.g. vserver means that all guests share the same kernel as the host > system, and that memory can be overcommitted if you want it to be. > > If you run Xen or KVM then each guest will be fully isolated and > can run different kernels. > > Is that a good thing? It depends what you're using the guests for, > and how much overhead you want. > > In practise if you're doing "nothing special", such as just hosting > apache & ssh, then all of them are about equal. There is no single > clear winner, and choosing will be a matter of: > > * Which is easiest to install/manage/use. > * Which has best documentation. > * Which people nearby are using, so you can chat about in the pub. > > For me? Xen was good, but the slow progress of getting it into the > mainline kernel meant there was a long period where you couldn't run it > on "modern" (new) hardware. So KVM wins. > > Other people will mention openbox, vmware, etc. At the end of the day > you should decide why you want it, what it must do then try out one or > two. Chances are many of the options will be good enough - but asking > "Which is best" is not a useful way forward; different people have > different use-cases and different biases.
He is right, I have a setup of VMware ESXi servers, vCenter, vSphere etc and this works very well for me, but by the sounds of it over kill for you, so what do you want to do -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
