On Sat, 2009-09-05 at 13:58 +0800, Xi Shen wrote: > xen requires your cpu support hardware virtulization. and i only heard > it support windows, but i do not know how well it supports. > Both statements are so very far from the truth:
Firstly, PV Xen guests require no hardware virtualization support, run at near-native performance and require very little resources from the host since it doesn't have to "emulate" hardware. Secondly you can run *many* PV-enabled OS's but not Windows. Windows is actually one of the guests that you can't run para-virtualized and for that you *do* need virtualization support in the hardware. > if you like vmware, why do not try vmware-server 2.0. it is in the > overlay, and it works very well for me. But what I don't understand is, why aren't people using KVM/virt-manager*? It's smaller and faster than VMWare Server, at least the last time I used VMWare. Since switching to KVM I haven't looked back. * KVM does require hardware virtualization support, but since 2006 I haven't purchased a machine that *didn't* have support for it.
