----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dennis Jacobfeuerborn" <denni...@conversis.de>
> To: "Andrew Cathrow" <acath...@redhat.com>
> Cc: "Bill Davidsen" <david...@tmr.com>, xen@lists.fedoraproject.org, 
> v...@lists.fedoraproject.org, "M A Young"
> <m.a.yo...@durham.ac.uk>
> Sent: Monday, November 8, 2010 1:59:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [fedora-virt] [Fedora-xen] Dom0 xen support in Fedora 15?
> On 11/08/2010 06:02 PM, Andrew Cathrow wrote:
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Bill Davidsen"<david...@tmr.com>
> >> To: dl...@redhat.com
> >> Cc: xen@lists.fedoraproject.org, v...@lists.fedoraproject.org, "M A
> >> Young"<m.a.yo...@durham.ac.uk>
> >> Sent: Monday, November 8, 2010 11:52:08 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [fedora-virt] [Fedora-xen] Dom0 xen support in Fedora
> >> 15?
> >> Dor Laor wrote:
> >>> On 11/08/2010 04:55 AM, M A Young wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I am trying to work out whether it is practical to propose Dom0
> >>>> xen
> >>>> support as a feature for Fedora 15.
> >>>>
> >>>> The kernel situation is that Domain 0 has been accepted upstream
> >>>> for
> >>>> 2.6.37. Assuming a 3 month kernel release cycle, F15 will most
> >>>> likely ship
> >>>> with a 2.6.37.x kernel, with 2.6.38 coming out either after the
> >>>> F15
> >>>> release or just before but too late to be included. If the plan
> >>>> to
> >>>> get key
> >>>> xen drivers into 2.6.38 succeeds, then F15 may be become usable
> >>>> as
> >>>> a
> >>>> Domain 0 system at some point during its lifetime as the kernel
> >>>> package in
> >>>> a Fedora version typically has one major update.
> >>>>
> >>>> If the kernel team accept backported patches then it might just
> >>>> be
> >>>> possible to ship F15 with usable Domain 0 support but the
> >>>> timescale
> >>>> for
> >>>> that would be very tight.
> >>>>
> >>>> The other thing we would need to consider is what needs to be
> >>>> done
> >>>> to make
> >>>> xen friendly enough to be usable by an ordinary user. The page
> >>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvopsDom0 contains
> >>>> plans
> >>>> from
> >>>> when dom0 xen support was expected to make a quick return to
> >>>> Fedora, but
> >>>> they are a couple of years old now so probably need updating.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think as a minimum we would need a way to add a dom0 enabled
> >>>> grub
> >>>> entry
> >>>> for a kernel, rather than requiring the user to hand edit the
> >>>> grub
> >>>> file.
> >>>> We should also make sure that xen works with the other Fedora
> >>>> virtualisation tools.
> >>>>
> >>>> What do others think about this? For example is it achievable as
> >>>> a
> >>>> feature, is it too early and better to wait for F16, and what
> >>>> else
> >>>> should
> >>>> we aim to do to make xen usable in Fedora?
> >>>>
> >>> Have you consider kvm? it's upstream since 2.6.20 and now its more
> >>> ready
> >>> than ever.
> >>>
> >>
> >> There are some good tutorials which should explain the difference
> >> between xen and kvm, particularly the performance and hardware
> >> requirements of each.
> >
> > re: hardware requirements, KVM's requirement for VT-X/AMD-V
> > extensions certainly used to be a concern 2-3 years ago but today
> > even laptops come with this support.
> > And regarding performance they days of Xen outperforming KVM have
> > long-since passed.
> 
> Citations needed. I'm not saying what you claim isn't true but without
> data
> this opinion doesn't carry much weight.
> 

Citations are really needed on both sides of the debate, 2 or 3 year old 
metrics no longer apply.
Vendors published benchmarks are typically questionable, they focus on their 
products strengths and their competitors weakness.
The only hope for a fair comparison is a vendor neutral set of benchmarks such 
as SPECvirt  http://www.spec.org/virt_sc2010/
But obviously this isn't a simple test to run.


> Regards,
> Dennis
--
xen mailing list
xen@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen

Reply via email to