It seems like XenServer will give me the virtual host environment w/
the least amount of overhead. And judging by that article, XenServer
Free Edition is now competing directly with ESXi. Since I'm familiar
w/ ESXi and wanting to try something similar, then I'll go ahead and
test w/ XenServer.
One last question. What's the purpose of the Xen Live CD? Can I use
it to convert P2V for use on XenServer?
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Todd Deshane <todd.deshane@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Fajar A. Nugraha <list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Tim Bearden <tim.bearden@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> If I install CentOS w/ the virtualization build, would it be a
>>> barebones OS?
>>> I don't want a GUI slowing the system down and would
>>> like all the hardware to be utilized by the VMs instead. For
>>> instance, ESXi is command line only, very basic OS install.
>> Then write down your priorities, and based on that, select the best
>> virtualization solution for you.
>> If you just want it to work with as little effort as possible, then
>> maybe you'd better stick with vmware. IIRC they still have the best
>> GUI, and "best" (as in least hassle, with most performance) shared
>> storage for live migration.
> Things are changing it seems:
>> If you want something that you can tinker with, learn from, and
>> (possibly) replace some components as you see fit, then start with
>> distro that comes with bundled virtualization solution (e.g. Centos5).
>> Once you're familiar with that then you can start doing some
>> experiments (e.g. upgrading the hypervisor, testing pci passthru, and
>> so on).
>> In between those two, there's XenServer (and the opensource XCP). It
>> uses xen hypervisor, but with different management tools, so from
>> users' perspective it'd be more similar to vmware (in that you only
>> have access to the GUI, and everything inside can be considered a
>> black box).
>> Xen-users mailing list
> Todd Deshane
Xen-users mailing list