Re: [Xen-devel] Clarifying PVH mode requirements

[Brendan Gregg <bgregg@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 02/01/2016 02:27 PM, PGNet Dev wrote:

On 02/01/2016 11:14 AM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:

Is 'HVMLite' replacing 'PVH'? Or are they separate modes?

Yes, HVMlite is replacing PVH. Probably once we get dom0 support.

If that's a 'done deal', and it sounds like it is, it'd be useful to have it integrated into:

http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Understanding_the_Virtualization_Spectrum

particularly as there's no mention of HVMlite on the wiki, at all.

Thanks, HVMlite is new to me. I created the Xen modes diagram on this page (based on the older modes diagram; if anyone wants the new omnigraffle source, email me), and I just created a Xen wiki account so I can update this page. I've been meaning to update this modes diagram anyway, and improve the columns.

HVMlite is very new: domU hypervisor support has been added less than two months ago and Linux patches are being reviewed as we speak (FreeBSD, I believe, is supported).

It's unclear whether PVH, in its current dev state (at least here), is worth-the-visit -- especially if HVMlite is "ComingSoon(tm)".

I suppose I'm looking for some guidance as to which to invest time in while on Xen 4.6.0, ack'ing that neither PVH nor HVMlite are production-ready.

Current PVH implementation has never been described as production-ready. What is happening now with HVMlite is essentially bringing PVH to production-quality level.

So should I s/PVH/HVMlite/g? Or too much of a simlification? thanks,

Brendan

--

Brendan Gregg, Senior Performance Architect, Netflix

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel