RE: [Xen-users] I want to know if.....

["Venefax" <venefax@xxxxxxxxx>]

It is exactly opposite. Para-virtualization is near-native performance. Use
full-virtualization only to mix windows and Linux in the same hardware. But
rest assured that Hyper-V R2 achieves 2 times the performance and stability
compared to KVm and Xen full-virt. I tested them all in real-life scenarios.
My advice is: use Xen 3.3 for any Linux domus and only paravirtualized. And
use Microsoft Hyper-v for windows on windows virtualization.


-----Original Message-----
From: Mauro [mailto:mrsanna1@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 6:40 PM
To: Venefax
Cc: jonr@xxxxxxxxxx; xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Xen-users] I want to know if.....

2009/2/27 Venefax <venefax@xxxxxxxxx>:
> It is not true at all. KVM and Xen are fundamentally different and address
> different problems. Xen allows for fast para-virtualization of Linux
Domus,
> while KVM only fully-virtualizes. Nobody in his right mind would use KVM
for
> a linux DOMu, because it would lose 75% of its performance, compared to
> para-virtualization. So KVM is for windows on Xen, but it will never
replace
> Xen in the datacenter.
> Federico

Sorry for my ignorance but...can you explain?
I think pure virtualization gains more in performances vs para
virtualization.


_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users