Re: [Xen-users] who comes from kvm?

[Bhasker C V <bhasker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 11 Feb 2011, Javier Guerra Giraldez wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Steve Sapovits <steves06@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > (Xen is a type 1, KVM is a type 2)
> that's not exact since KVM doesn't run 'on top of' the Linux kernel;
> it's part of the Linux kernel.  as such, it has the same 'bare metal'
> access to hardware as the rest of the kernel or the Xen hypervisor.
>
> IMHO, the main difference is that Xen has its own scheduler and
> arbitration logic, while KVM reuses existing Linux code.  pro: it can
> be tuned to the specific case of handling VMs.  con: a little
> duplication of code
I second this. I have used KVM extensively and find it is very stable and 
useful in case we are running a dissimlar OS (like windows and SunOS). KVM 
is really good in a lot of respects (for eg:- in case of USB if you want
to send a raw USB device to the guest machine). I have found KVM very 
stable. As Javier told, KVM is _not_ running on top of kernel. It is a 
totaly different sub-system and gives near-baremetal performance if 
properly configured with virtio drivers.
Almost everything which can be done on Xen can be done on KVM (but IMO 
vice-versa is not totally true).
> --
> Javier
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users