Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: [News] KVM is Better Than Xen

Roy Schestowitz wrote:

> Increasing Virtualization Insanity
> 
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | For sysadmin types this means: do what you have to do with Xen for now.
> | But keep the investments small. For developers this means: don't let
> | yourself be tied to a platform. Use an abstraction layer such as libvirt
> | to bridge over the differences. For architects this means: don't looking
> | to Xen for answers, base your new designs on KVM.
> `----
> 
> http://udrepper.livejournal.com/17577.html
> 
> 
> Related:
> 
> Xen vs. KVM: round 1 bell to ring soon
> 
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Industry executives are downplaying concerns about a growing schism
> | between rival open source virtualization factions but a market battle
> | between Xen and KVM appears increasingly likely, and imminent.
> `----
> 
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1314
> 

I think there will always be the fight between those that go for the shared
kernel and those that go for the individual kernel approach. It is hard to
come up with an argument that can claim that one is better than the other
in all circumstances. But there are places where the difference stands out
more, not so much from the end user's point of view as much as for
maintenance.

I am sure we have all used a chroot system at one time or another, certainly
on mainframes, but also on our own Linux machines, in my case it was to
seperate development that needed testing at system level from the main
system (I didn't want their code causing mine to crash :-) ).

I could carry on with updates on the live server as normal, my chroot system
benefitted from any updates that affected the kernel without any extra
effort.

>From a maintenance point of view the shared kernel is much more convinient
than individual kernels.

I know there are places where individual kernels are a benefit, those that
want vrtual machines from web hosts but also want full control of their
virtual server for example. 

But also there is some benefit from the point of view that a departmental
virtual machine, if it needs to be seperated from the main machine at some
time, you effectively have a single whole package that you can pick up and
drop onto their new server.  {Yes, I know, I choked a bit as I typed it
because it isn't as clean as I made it sound, allow a bit of artistic
licence in these posts and we'll get on much better}. But at the same time
this capability isn't too far away.

Personally though I would say that the vast majority could get away with the
shared kernel and would benefit from easier across the board updates.


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index