Qrux wrote: > At the moment, there's a large body of support and activity for both > Xen and KVM. They are both in the mainline kernel (as of 3.0), which > means supporting both "out-of-the-box" is more feasible. Xen takes > more work setting up (though, that's just editing your GRUB conf > files). KVM may be easier to deploy for graphical Guests; I've never > tried hosting one on Xen.
Well I can say that figuring out KVM (networking) wasn't easy for me. Hopefully, it will be easier for others. OTOH, the gui part was easy. My client was Fedora and it just "came up". There were two aspects that were a little more complex. I wanted the window to come up over ssh. Since kvm-qemu needs to be run as root, that took a little review of ssh. I also wanted a screen a little bigger than the default 1024x768, but that was just a matter of configuring xorg on the client. > I'm not really trying to recommend one over the other (it appears to > be a rather religious "Emacs/Vi" issue for those who care). My > personal opinion is just that Xen would be a nice add to BLFS. > Although, frankly, I'm not married to the idea. I know Bruce's > intentions for BLFS in general are a little divergent from my needs. > I'm content with Xen being a consumer of the BLFS dependencies it > has, and to offer some feedback about those dependencies (e.g., > bridge-utils). I don't have any preferences either, other than kvm is the one I happened to choose first. I did so because I knew the drivers are built into the kernel and kvm-qemu is basically a CMMI app. BTW, all the online docs talk about running modprobe, etc. That's not necessary. Building the drivers directly into the kernel works fine. > Speaking of which--has anyone successfully compiled Dev86 on their > BLFS setup...? I don't know what Dev86 is. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
