On 8/20/2012 6:08 PM, Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) wrote:
[snip]
I haven't done any benchmarks, but subjectively speaking Xen seems much,
much faster than VirtualBox. Much cleaner too -- once the hypervisor
starts, there're no user-level processes hanging around for
vistualisation assistance. Each machine is independent, stand-alone and
can be individually managed.
AFAIK, VirtualBox still doesn't support full paravirtualization, so
you'd be running hardware virtualization and a stock kernel in a
VirtualBox guest. This is likely to be a pretty big performance hit. If
using linux guests on a linux host, Xen+pvops (or kvm) is a much better
choice if you care about performance.
(That is, unless I'm wrong and vbox supports pvops guests now)
I use virtualbox on my desktop since it's easier to
clone/snapshot/rollback VMs, but on servers Xen makes a lot more sense.
I haven't played with live VM migration or stuff like that yet, but Xen
is likely to be better at that too.
-Taj.
_______________________________________________
Ilugd mailing list
Ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org
http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd
