I completely agree with you on all points made. Sorry if I came off
like I was the email list police, I just see poor saps getting their
hopes up that they can have a cloud like Amazon to sell to their
customers in a timeframe that is completely unreasonable. Several of
them have quoted mailing list conversations as the foundation for they
crazy pipe dreams! I have spent more than a year developing a public
cloud offering based on Xen and lots of hours of reworking things,
creating an interface for management and billing and such things, so
it aggravates me when n00bs pick and choose mailing list posts to base
their "professional opinion" on! Okay /rant off!
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Jeff Sturm <jeff.sturm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My point is that Amazon has a choice to run their cloud on technology
> derived from either Xen or KVM. They may have started with Xen because it
> was the first to market, or a superior technology, or free, but whatever the
> reason I presume they have chosen it over competitors. And they've likely
> done far more analysis than I have of the virtualization market. I've done
> my own limited evaluation of the products, but I also put stock into what I
> hear and see from others.
>
>
>
> I didn't mean to imply with my original post that Amazon built their cloud
> on Xen's tools. We know they use at least the hypervisor and Linux kernel,
> and these may or may not be extensively modified, I don't know. The user
> space tools to manage Xen deployments are bare bones in the community
> edition, so many users have either bought/downloaded alternative management
> tools, or created their own. Amazon clearly put a lot of effort into the
> design and implementation of their cloud, and I presume anyone creating
> their own cloud will do the same.
>
>
>
> When I think of the Xen/KVM arguments I usually consider the architectural
> design issues and the features and performance of the core components
> (kernel, hypervisor). Management tools are important, but not an
> interesting point of debate to me since one technology doesn't necessarily
> have much of an advantage over the other in that regard, and layers like
> libvirt tend to make the tools agnostic anyway. It's like debating the
> merits of two different operating systems based on the design of the
> kernel. Operating systems need much more than a kernel to succeed in the
> market, but it's not a stretch to claim the kernel is the most important
> component.
>
>
>
> From: Scott Damron [mailto:sdamron@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 4:09 PM
> To: Jeff Sturm
> Cc: admin@xxxxxxxxxxx; Xen User-List
> Subject: Re: [Xen-users] KVM vs XEN source
>
>
>
> You mention Amazon as using XEN like it is some off the shelf XEN install.
> It is definitely not. The same goes for 3Tera/CA. Sure, they use XEN, but
> that stuff is no where NEAR the stock XEN software. When people pimp the
> fact that Amazon or some other large institution uses XEN, it makes everyone
> believe that they can have a setup like those mentioned above with little to
> no effort. Please justify that type of comment when you make them.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Jeff Sturm <jeff.sturm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Xen has some very large deployments (Amazon EC2). It's not easy to say what
> kind of market share KVM has these days, assuming a minority of all Red Hat
> customers actually use it. I think it's fair to say KVM has an uphill
> battle to fight with the likes of Xen and VMWare on the market. Ultimately
> if both products are very good, small margins of performance won't matter to
> most users.
>
>
>
> Red Hat took a big gamble on a niche virtualization technology, since in my
> opinion they don't have the market muscle to make KVM a dominant player.
> Time will tell how this works out for them. I've also seen posts from
> people saying (in effect): "You should try out KVM, it is very good." I
> believe they're probably right. The problem for KVM supporters is they
> haven't given me any reason to switch. (And before someone mentions it, I
> don’t count dom0 support as a reason, since I have no business requirement
> to run RHEL 6 on each piece of hardware I own.)
>
>
>
> From: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 2:09 PM
> To: 'Xen User-List'
> Subject: RE: [Xen-users] KVM vs XEN source
>
>
>
> Given enough effort, anything is possible. At this point in time, I
> definitely think Xen is better than KVM. If Xen development stalled and KVM
> development continued to move forward, KVM could become better at some point
> in time. Predications tend to be tricky, though. About 50 years ago,
> everybody assumed we would all drive flying cars by now.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bruno Steven
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 10:12 AM
> To: Xen User-List
> Subject: [Xen-users] KVM vs XEN source
>
>
>
> Hi Dear,
>
> I read in foruns , sites especialized that KVM will be better than XEN
> sourcer on next years. It is possible ? Somebody has some link that bring
> comparation beteween Xen souce and KVM ?
>
> Thank very much
>
> --
> Bruno Steven - Administrador de sistemas
> LPIC-2 / MCSA-Windows 2003 / CompTIA Security+
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>
>
> --
>
> Never wrestle with a pig. You'll only get dirty and the pig likes it.
--
Never wrestle with a pig. You'll only get dirty and the pig likes it.
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
Home