Re: [Xen-users] who comes from kvm?

[Mauro <mrsanna1@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 12 February 2011 22:45, Bhasker C V <bhasker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2011, Javier Guerra Giraldez wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Steve Sapovits <steves06@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> (Xen is a type 1, KVM is a type 2)
>>
>> that's not exact since KVM doesn't run 'on top of' the Linux kernel;
>> it's part of the Linux kernel.  as such, it has the same 'bare metal'
>> access to hardware as the rest of the kernel or the Xen hypervisor.
>>
>> IMHO, the main difference is that Xen has its own scheduler and
>> arbitration logic, while KVM reuses existing Linux code.  pro: it can
>> be tuned to the specific case of handling VMs.  con: a little
>> duplication of code
>
> I second this. I have used KVM extensively and find it is very stable and
> useful in case we are running a dissimlar OS (like windows and SunOS). KVM
> is really good in a lot of respects (for eg:- in case of USB if you want
> to send a raw USB device to the guest machine). I have found KVM very
> stable. As Javier told, KVM is _not_ running on top of kernel. It is a
> totaly different sub-system and gives near-baremetal performance if properly
> configured with virtio drivers.
>
> Almost everything which can be done on Xen can be done on KVM (but IMO
> vice-versa is not totally true).

Do you use xen or kvm on your productions servers?

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users