On 29 March 2012 22:59, Tom H <tomh0...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:32 PM, francis picabia <fpica...@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-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAE1pOi2xCrw=gr+tgymkojw6a9wonsesaqe74yve14umto5...@mail.gmail.com