I have both and Virtuozzo has
less overhead then Xen. ÂIt is the reverse. I use XEN because I need to
virtualize Windows along with Linux. But rest assured, OpenVZ and Virtuozzo are
one or several steps ahead. The management tools are far more sophisticated in
Virtuozzo and the support is amazing, it cannot be compared.
From:
xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:xen-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 8:52 PM
To: gingell
Cc: xen-users
Subject: RE: [Xen-users] Xen Setup
Hi Rob,
Basically thereâs 2 reasons why Iâm
looking at Xen:
1. Cost of licencing for Virtuozzo which
is based on how many CPUs etc.
2. Xen has better IO performance
compared to Virtuozzo. Itâs been shown on a few forums that Xen can have 3
times the disk IO performance.
Does anyone have any answers to my
original questions?
Regards,
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Gingell [mailto:gingell@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, 7 August 2008 5:39 AM
To: Alan Lam
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] Xen Setup
Alan wrote:
> I am interested in deploying Xen to
replace an existing Virtuozzo based
> virtual server solution we are
currently using.
I'm curious about your shift from
Virtuozzo: is that because you needed
something other than Virtuozzo does? or
because Virtuozzo proved to be
ineffective in some way?
I'm asking because I'm being urged to
work with Virtuozzo, and wanted to
know if there were some pitfalls in
using it that were evident in
people's experiences with it.
Appreciate any thoughts you can share.
