Hello,
KVM is more tightly integrated into the OS/kernel, it allows for
easier management of resources, device passthrough etc., very good for
desktop virtualisation.
However, it will always be slower than Xen when it comes to I/O.
That is also one of the reasons why Oracle is using Xen and not KVM for
their virtualisation solution. But which applications are the most I/O
intensive? High-traffic webservers (network) and databases (disk
access). The benefits of virtualisation of high-traffic webservers are
questionable and if you want to virtualise some enterprise DB, you need
to use the "certified" solution which for Oracle is only Oracle VM.
Red Hat-provided KVM should be fine for all other applications
which are not I/O intensive. And it should still be better than VMware.
Regards,
Daniel
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tim Edwards
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 11:57 AM
To: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 (Tikanga) discussion mailing-list
Subject: Re: [rhelv5-list] OT virtualisation choices
Gunther Schlegel wrote:
> Given my experience with RHEL 5.x builtin Xen and VMware ESX(i),
> VMWare is kind of unusable when it comes to IO-intensive workloads,
> while xen is doing a decent job, as long as you run paravirtualized
drivers.
>
> And there are some rumours that rhel 5.4 will rock the block.
Yes, they will push KVM instead of Xen although will still support Xen,
at least for 5.x,
http://press.redhat.com/2009/02/23/open-source-innovation-strikes-again/
Will be very interesting to see - does anyone know what KVM has over
Xen?
Tim Edwards
_______________________________________________
rhelv5-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list
_______________________________________________
rhelv5-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list
