On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 01:27:34PM +0800, Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote: > I beg to differ. Xen virtualization offers superior performance.
I say one thing, you say another. Neither of us are providing any evidence to the discussion (thus far) apart from my anecdotal evidence, where I get more than 100 KVM-powered VMs onto one of my hosts, and I couldn't get more than ~20 Xen-powered VMs onto a similarly-specced host, a year or so prior. The limitation was tool-based, I think, that is bugs in Xen's management tools. This isn't really sufficient to further the discussion. > Oracle VirtualBox and Virtual Iron and also Microsoft's Hyper-V is > based on Xen code I think. This has no bearing on the relative performance merits of Xen vs. KVM. (FWIW, I think you're wrong re VirtualBox, but Oracle do develop a branded product based on Xen called Oracle VM, formerly Sun xVM. I'm fairly sure that Hyper-V was developed independently from Xen, but it certainly supports some kind-of interoperation with Xen interfaces for guests.) -- Jon Dowland -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120330105422.GF3706@debian
