On 14-10-02 10:57 AM, Dietmar Maurer wrote:
PVE documentation is almost nonexistent compared to VMware, and what does
exist is of far lower quality - this is really the big deal, where "you get
what you
pay for" with VMware.
I also want to mention that the full source code is available... IMHO, this is
the best
Documentation you can get.
While that is true, it's also true that most users (i.e. sysadmins, in
this case) don't have the time or the technical skill to read and
understand the source code.
There are advantages to having the source code available, even if you
don't have the ability to make local changes. This is a partly
technical, partly philosophical-and/or-political argument.
I am quite sure that OpenVZ containers are less overhead that Xen.
Yes, they would be, of course.
I didn't cover that since the OP was asking for comparison to VMware
which has no similar feature.
Xen's DomU approach produces lower overhead than KVM, if you can live
with the technical limitations (mainly: limited guest OS support).
OpenVZ has even less overhead than DomU, if you can live with the fairly
restrictive technical limitations inherent in using Containers.
Kernel Same-Page Merging largely takes care of the overhead caused by
running multiple copies of the same OS in multiple VMs.
Disk-based deduplication can manage the overhead caused by having
multiple copes of the same OS on disk.
There's no way that I know of to avoid the processor and network
overhead of having multiple copies of the OS running in parallel, which
is what DomU partially accomplishes and OpenVZ fully accomplishes.
If containerization is supported for the OP's business applications,
then OpenVZ provides a good way to minimize resource usage and increase
performance.
--
-Adam Thompson
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
pve-user mailing list
[email protected]
http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user
