This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


RE: [Xen-users] I want to know if.....

To: "'Mauro'" <mrsanna1@xxxxxxxxx>, "Venefax" <venefax@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-users] I want to know if.....
From: "Nick Couchman" <Nick.Couchman@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:22:32 -0700
Cc: jonr@xxxxxxxxxx, xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:23:37 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
List-help: <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-users@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I agree with the parts about para-virt native performance, but I COMPLETELY disagree with Hyper-V for performance and stability of Windows guests.  I run Windows guests on my Xen 3.2.1 host (SLES10 SP2) with very good performance and no stability problems at all.  Furthermore, Server 2008 is supposed to have built-in paravirtualization support that works on Hyper-V or Xen.  I recommend Xen for Linux, Windows, Solaris, and BSD virtualization - VMware ESX(i) is my second choice.  Don't mean to be a Microsoft basher...

>>> "Venefax" <venefax@xxxxxxxxx> 2009/02/26 16:46 >>>
It is exactly opposite. Para-virtualization is near-native performance. Use
full-virtualization only to mix windows and Linux in the same hardware. But
rest assured that Hyper-V R2 achieves 2 times the performance and stability
compared to KVm and Xen full-virt. I tested them all in real-life scenarios.
My advice is: use Xen 3.3 for any Linux domus and only paravirtualized. And
use Microsoft Hyper-v for windows on windows virtualization.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mauro [mailto:mrsanna1@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 6:40 PM
To: Venefax
Cc: jonr@xxxxxxxxxx; xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] I want to know if.....

2009/2/27 Venefax <venefax@xxxxxxxxx>:
> It is not true at all. KVM and Xen are fundamentally different and address
> different problems. Xen allows for fast para-virtualization of Linux
> while KVM only fully-virtualizes. Nobody in his right mind would use KVM
> a linux DOMu, because it would lose 75% of its performance, compared to
> para-virtualization. So KVM is for windows on Xen, but it will never
> Xen in the datacenter.
> Federico

Sorry for my ignorance but...can you explain?
I think pure virtualization gains more in performances vs para

This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. If this email is not intended for you, or you are not responsible for the delivery of this message to the intended recipient, please note that this message may contain SEAKR Engineering (SEAKR) Privileged/Proprietary Information. In such a case, you are strictly prohibited from downloading, photocopying, distributing or otherwise using this message, its contents or attachments in any way. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this e-mail and delete the message from your mailbox. Information contained in this message that does not relate to the business of SEAKR is neither endorsed by nor attributable to SEAKR.

Xen-users mailing list
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>