> Using the name Virtuozzo and Virtualization in the same sentence is
> being a bit optimistic. As far as density - on mysqlbench I'm losing
> less than 1% to the exact same server running it native. In order to
> get more density than that I think you'd have to be doing something amazing
> unless your "virtualized" servers are faster than the real one. So how well
> does that live migration between Windows servers work with Virtuozzo?
> As far as the cost, I have 190 Xen servers and I've never paid a dime.
> As far as the community I'd think that 80 messages a day on the Xen lists
> would be considered more than very little.
I think you may have misinterpreted my statement to mean that Xen is expensive
and the user community is very small. This is exactly the opposite of what I
was saying: I was speaking about the downsides of Virtuozzo, and the advantages
that Xen has over it.
To be absolutely clear: Xen has an excellent, thriving user community, is free,
and works fantastically. Virtuozzo is neat for density (# of VMs running on a
piece of hardware), but it’s not free, has no cohesive community, and lacks
some of the features that Xen brings to the table.
Like you, I have many XEN servers deployed in production, and my job would be
MUCH harder without it.
Sr. Systems Administrator - Atlas Networks, LLC
Xen-users mailing list