On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 3:58 PM, John Hearns<hear...@googlemail.com> wrote: > 2009/6/15 Michael Di Domenico <mdidomeni...@gmail.com>: >> Course having said all that, if you've been watching the linux-kernel >> mailing list you've probably noticed the Xen/Kvm/Linux HV argument >> that took place last week. Makes me a little afraid to push any Linux >> HV solution into to production, but it's a fun experiment none the >> less... > > Could you please give us a summary? Really would be appreciated - I > don't follow those lists that closely. > I spent the last week in a small room with lots of racks, cables and > blinking lights!
it was a little hard to follow as it turned into six arguments in one thread like most mailing list arguments tend to do. as best i could tell there were three major things going on 1. whether to not to turn the linux kernel into a hypervisor or keep things as they are with linux feeding scheduling and drivers to the domains 2. whether or not to add a xen branch to the linux kernel and make xen a formal branch. the xen guys claim this would require a long time and too many changes on their part to fit the kernel build/coding process 3. general code quality with the xen patches. linus showed the git diff history between kvm and xen. apparently xen pollutes the kernel code base something fierce and it makes people unhappy. apparently a lot of xen patches get rejected i'm not positive i've surmised everything that happened, but thats what i took away from the threads. _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin Computing To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
