| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-users
Re: [Xen-users] KVM vs XEN source
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Jeff Sturm <jeff.sturm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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).
The type-1 (stand alone) architecture that Xen has is one advantage
that makes Xen stand out. Stub domains, driver domains, and dom0
disaggregation will not be able to be achieved (at least not to the
same degree and not on top of a monolithic kernel like Linux) by a
type-2 (integrated) hypervisor like KVM.
Xen has always had the best mix of performance, isolation (both in
terms of security and performance), and scalability.
> 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.
libvirt has many limitations in comparison to the Xen API. This is
explained in detail by Ewan Mellor here:
http://wiki.openstack.org/XenAPI. At a high level, the Xen API has a
lot more functionality and is designed to for enterprise use.
--
Todd Deshane
http://www.linkedin.com/in/deshantm
http://www.xen.org/products/cloudxen.html
http://runningxen.com/
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
|
|
| |
|
Home