> > Could you please let me know which of virtulization is mature > kvm vs Xen vs virtio vs virtualbox vs VMWARE > > in real production which has more performance and reliability and number of > virtual hosts supported > >
*First*: There are two ways to virtualize. 1 - Desktop applications used to virtualize: These basically install a module (which plays the role of a hypervisor) into the running OS and pass most calls to hardware using that module. These are quite effective for very *small *business needs / *testing */ *personal *use etc. 2 - Bare metal: These are more like customized kernels combined along with a Hypervisor and installed as an OS on the hardware. These are *Enterprise Oriented* solutions. Now for your question: *VmWare* is I believe the longest running virtual enterprise solution provider and considered most reliable for the same. They provide both Desktop application as well as bare-metal virtualization solutions. Both are really good/fast/(lot of features) in their respective arenas. *XenServer*: Considered next best. They introduced the concept of para-virtualization. Newer solution compared to VMWare, however it is also very effective. XenServer comes as Baremetal solution. They have also tied up with various companies like Redhat which release a customized Kernel with the Xen Hypervisor. *VirtualBox*: This is a desktop solution from SUN (now oracle). This is fast, but I don't think it has as many features as VmWare desktop solution. This is *not* a Bare Metal solution. *Qemu*: Desktop solution. Very Very slow. You will find this, when you try to install VMs using just Qemu, not kvm-qemu. * KVM*: This too is a desktop solution. Basically uses qemu to virtualize, however, the qemu-kvm module is 100 times faster than just the qemu module. Again not many features, but good solution. *Virtio*: I dont know. Regards, Ashish _______________________________________________ ILUGC Mailing List: http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc