Octave Orgeron <unixcons...@yahoo.com> writes: > Well I don't think Xen is a good enough hypervisor anyways. I would rather > see > Oracle come up with something better. There are too many Xen implementations > and > not enough features to differentiate them other than GUI's. Even Red Hat has > realized this and are pushing their KVM agenda.
Now, I'll be shortly much more educated on this subject, but last time I looked, KVM simply wasn't up to the same load as Xen. You can easly drop 100+ guests on a 8 core/32GiB ram box with xen, and the problem you hit is that sharing disk sucks. my understanding is that kvm falls over before that. Anyhow, I just bought a (much smaller) competitor who does KVM, so I'm about to get a crash course on how it fares in production. And sadly when people talk about > virtualization on x86, it's always a VMware discussion with Citrix Xen and MS > Hyper-V looked at as oddball alternatives. Red Hat, Oracle, Novell, etc > aren't > even in the discussion. If you talk about /enterprise/ virtualization, sure. If you are trying to consolidate 5 year old servers on to newer boxes and have a nigh unlimited budget, your needs are rather different. But if you talk about the hosting market, "the cloud" etc... open-source xen is the only game in town. I know of one serious competitor who uses KVM, and they are japanese-only, so for all I know I'm mistranslating something. ec2 uses xen, so does linode, slicehost, grockthis.net, and just about anyone else you'd seriously consider hosting a production app on. The second most popular platform is OpenVZ (but really, I say that's a different market and should be treated as such.) -- Luke S. Crawford http://prgmr.com/xen/ - Hosting for the technically adept http://nostarch.com/xen.htm - We don't assume you are stupid. _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
