[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-users] The future of para-virtualization

  • To: Dario Faggioli <raistlin@xxxxxxxx>
  • From: Mihai DonÈu <mihai.dontu@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 17:42:26 +0300
  • Cc: xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Niu Xinli <niuxinli1989@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
  • Delivery-date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 14:43:39 +0000
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gmail.com; b=4GdOUY5bX06MQQ+9xCLBEn/JknVRLDFOxUrxU8XABig9jG0y/lvwoaCHoC9CD4xNK4rawygxS/0vHV0twD1t3YL1HjEC73/xHY6hLn5Cbk275G9/KK1mRYQymv74/OPbL6d0PbKNRLbbu59DaL+KMiLGkEh/88BGMeuO6w08d3U= ;
  • List-id: Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xen.org>

On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 16:18:04 +0200 Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > Para-virtualization outperforms full-virtualization at the cost of
> > compatibility. 
> >
> So, if I can ask, do you mind explaining a bit more what you mean with
> this sentence above? More specifically, when you say "at the cost of
> compatibility", what are the compatibility costs you are referring to?

I think he's referring to the fact that paravirtualization requires
extensive support from the guest OS. Linux and some flavors of BSD have
such support, but it's trickier with Microsoft Windows. I think there's
some work on that front too, but I don't know how far it got[1].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xen#Microsoft_Windows_systems_as_guests

> Just out of curiosity and for the benefit of the on-going
> discussion. :-)

Mihai DonÈu

Xen-users mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.