But, as I said, I'm not interested in performance here, just stability.
VMWare is slow without pv, but is stable (I can download gigs of data from
machines on the same network with no problems; I can't do the same with a
Xen vm at the moment), while Xen, as of your words, is unstable without PV.
Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 10:29:09PM +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 11:27:44AM -0800, Pezza wrote:
>> > Pasi,
>> > thanks for your reply.
>> > I understood from this and other mailing lists that using an HVM
>> > with no PV drivers would result in a poor performance, but it would
>> > anyway.
>> > My problem is that, due to this packet loss, HVM machines are not
>> > because they get some "strange" errors from time to time (session
>> > corrupt files, etc...).
>> > So you're saying that lack of PV drivers is the cause and thus that HVM
>> > machines are not stable if we don't use PV drivers?
>> Basicly, yes.
>> HVM domU hardware emulation (NIC, disk controller, etc) is done by QEMU
>> QEMU people can possibly tell you more about expected performance and
>> And I bet you can find many comparisons with some googling.. performance
>> with and without PV drivers in HVM domU.
> Btw same happens with VMware.. if you don't install "vmware tools"
> (=optimized drivers) you're limited to 10 Mbit/sec networking etc..
> -- Pasi
> Xen-users mailing list
View this message in context:
Sent from the Xen - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Xen-users mailing list