 Home |
Products |
Support |
Community |
News |
xen-users
Re: [Xen-users] a new server for Xen
| To: | xin <xcheney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [Xen-users] a new server for Xen |
| From: | Jan Albrecht <jan.albrecht@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 01 Mar 2007 06:15:32 +0100 |
| Cc: | xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Delivery-date: | Wed, 28 Feb 2007 21:14:49 -0800 |
| Dkim-signature: | a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=QE7+y7UC+jpfRn+vd03us/Qq8Prq3iEUqR+9/uEdOT+cq7b3lxPoA3sLFsuBivVG1LMezRUFA+RQp7leeeyYjzbTQpz1arn1ZDt2hxRj9F0eqTqC5J3dSSYM/8ry5CRzv3fhROejgOUvWzKZ70aEvezPky1cEn9qhi3Bjes52pI= |
| Domainkey-signature: | a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=dLhYVZrbboVtmg/r6JxikeUhbEIX9+qKg683Q7beyiWEqKddFAWwHnTU50Y5btjdRwMBFaOjBb7L0JZpnq9LgSRfz9HUnyc38J3aIBw627hCwpTWcZnazzx+euznjQ30KD3V/HsLxivQW4M6Zw6opx/52zulHlxvD8No2DPYKow= |
| Envelope-to: | www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <9198889.post@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| List-help: | <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
| List-id: | Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com> |
| List-post: | <mailto:xen-users@lists.xensource.com> |
| List-subscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
| List-unsubscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-users>, <mailto:xen-users-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
| References: | <45E50A33.2020507@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <45E510E7.2090307@xxxxxxxxx> <9198889.post@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20060911) |
xin wrote: > Thanks for that. What about a VT-supported cpu to do the para-virtualization > instead of full-virtualization? which one is better. I've AMD PV and Intel VT here and from my point of view the VT are much better (and that's no matter if they're AMD, Intel or from Mars...), because you can install an OS "out-of-box" to that server. With PV you're limited to Linux and to special kernels. And the arguments Mats brought up may be right, but as long as you do normal daily business on such a server (file-server, webserver, etc...) at VT machine would always be the better choice. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [Xen-users] Using multiple logical volumes for partitions in domUs, Mike Lee |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Xen-users] Any largeish deployments of Xen? References?, Jan Albrecht |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: [Xen-users] a new server for Xen, Petersson, Mats |
| Next by Thread: | [Xen-users] dom0 with nfsroot. bridge problems., Chris Fanning |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
