On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 09:33:38 +0000, Jon wrote in message <[email protected]>:
> On 29/02/12 08:02, Davide Mirtillo wrote: > > How should i consider technologies like KVM and openVZ regarding > > stability? I'm talking about downtimes and maintenance time. I heard > > multiple opinions on xen being a bad thing to work with, both > > performance wise and stability wise. I wouldn't want to set this > > "private cloud" up only to discover it's not production ready! > > My advice would be to stick to technologies which are widely deployed > and supported, so ideally things that are in the mainline Kernel, or > are explicitly supported by a commercial distro, e.g. Red Hat. > > That rules in KVM but rules out OpenVZ. > > There is an argument that virtualisation technologies (Xen, KVM) are > more heavyweight than container technologies (linux vserver, OpenVZ, > lxc). However in my experience and especially with modern hardware, > this is rarely an issue: for example I run ~100 KVM VMs on top of 5 > year old hosts. ..what kinda hardware? > I'd suggest going for a virtualisation technology, > and I'd suggest KVM - unless your management software layer (proxmox > or whatever) dictates another e.g. Xen in which case the management > layer is a more important decision. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
