|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-users] who comes from kvm?
On 2/12/2011 5:45 PM, Bhasker C V wrote: > that's not exact since KVM doesn't run 'on top of' the Linux kernel; > it's part of the Linux kernel. as such, it has the same 'bare metal' > access to hardware as the rest of the kernel or the Xen hypervisor. One differing factor is paravirtualization. To clarify my comments regarding KVM: I meant it runs *in* the kernel. So, yes -- when accessing hardware without paravirtualization, making a Linux kernel call versus making a Xen hypervisor/micorkernel call is probably half a dozen of one/6 of the other. However, when running paravirtualized guests, the dedicated nature of the Xen approach can offer better performance. Here's a good paper on the subject: http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/219/4/042005/pdf/1742-6596_219_4_042005.pdf KVM has more limited paravirtualization -- only specific network and IO drivers I believe (someone can clarify this perhaps). Does it matter? Probably not for most people. I've considered using KVM again and may use it on another box at some point. Theoretically, the separation of the VMs in a dedicated hypervisor like Xen *should* also offer better security: The assumption being that the more general purpose Linux kernel is more susceptible to security attacks than the specific purpose Xen kernel. I have, however, seen nothing that indicates any real world issues in the security area. -- Steve Sapovits steves06@xxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
 |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |