On 9/8/07, Izik Eidus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >
> kvm have support to amd virtualization extensions., you your cpu have
> it, you should have no problem to use kvm.
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
That's great!!. The more I read about KVM the more I like it!.
Point #1:
I just wish someone had thought more about the name before selecting "KVM"
... because Sun has been using KVM (the K Virtual Machine) for its Java VM
for embedded devices for some time. This just causes confusion on web
searches...
The K Virtual Machine (KVM)
http://java.sun.com/products/cldc/wp/
In any case... choosing somthing like "Kernel-VM" instead of the KVM moniker
would have been less confusing. But hey... no big deal... but still if you
ever decide to change the name...
Point #2:
I'm very happy (yet a bit surprised) to see RedHat has simultaneously
embraced KVM for the Fedora 7 desktop, and Xen for the next RedHat
Enterprise Server.
Red Hat endorses KVM virtualization
http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-6159528.html
^ this just shows to me that Red Hat continues being the smartest Linux
vendor out there IMHO! (from the desktop selection -Gnome vs KDE- to its
support for Java (JBoss), and now to virtualization (KVM), ... unlike some
other Linux vendor out there that like to do pacts with Redmond and include
other proprietary VM technologies.... ;)
Point #3: Xen vs KVM... I'm confused
The above move by RedHat is a bit confusing... what can Xen do that KVM
cannot?. In other words, why should anyone even bother with Xen with KVM
around ??. I've read Xen is "more robust" because it has a "one year lead"
over KVM. But really, how does this translate, if performance of Xen could
be worse due to more paravirtualization?. Or is Xen more optimized to
provide the "greatest possible consolidation" on servers (ie less resource
usage, less impact on cpu usage of a high number of VMs?).
Finally... after reading about Xen and KVM(this KVM, not Sun's ;), I
wonder... the FAQ says Xen does more paravirtualization, whereas KVM uses
the CPU's own virtualization features. Yet I visit some articles like this
one
http://aplawrence.com/Linux/kvm_virtualization.html
which claims that Xen is "THE FASTEST" approach to virtualization. How can
it be faster since it uses paravirtualization (software) instead of direct
hardware virtualization features as KVM?
=[quote]======
Xen
http://www.xensource.com/
"Its goal is to provide very high performance. It is probably the fastest
hypervisor you can find and it achieves this through 'paravirtualization'. "
=============
Sorry again... I'm just trying to understand the "big picture"...
FC
--
Dream of the Daily Mail
It is the Holy Grail
And then the BBC
Your life would be complete
-Manic Street Preachers, "Royal Correspondent"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
kvm-devel mailing list
kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
