RE: [Xen-users] Xen Setup

["Venefax" <venefax@xxxxxxxxx>]

I have both and Virtuozzo has less overhead then Xen.  It is the reverse. I use XEN because I need to virtualize Windows along with Linux. But rest assured, OpenVZ and Virtuozzo are one or several steps ahead. The management tools are far more sophisticated in Virtuozzo and the support is amazing, it cannot be compared.

 

From: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 8:52 PM
To: gingell
Cc: xen-users
Subject: RE: [Xen-users] Xen Setup

 

Hi Rob,

 

Basically there’s 2 reasons why I’m looking at Xen:

 

1. Cost of licencing for Virtuozzo which is based on how many CPUs etc.

2. Xen has better IO performance compared to Virtuozzo. It’s been shown on a few forums that Xen can have 3 times the disk IO performance.

 

Does anyone have any answers to my original questions?

 

Regards,

Alan

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Gingell [mailto:gingell@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, 7 August 2008 5:39 AM
To: Alan Lam
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Xen Setup

 

Alan wrote:

> I am interested in deploying Xen to replace an existing Virtuozzo based

> virtual server solution we are currently using.

 

I'm curious about your shift from Virtuozzo: is that because you needed

something other than Virtuozzo does? or because Virtuozzo proved to be

ineffective in some way?

 

I'm asking because I'm being urged to work with Virtuozzo, and wanted to

know if there were some pitfalls in using it that were evident in

people's experiences with it.

 

Appreciate any thoughts you can share.

 

 

 

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