On Sun, 2006-12-31 at 12:30 -0500, Mike Chalmers wrote: > On 12/31/06, Gilboa Davara <gilboad@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, 2006-12-30 at 18:15 -0500, Mike Chalmers wrote: > > > I was wondering if anyone new about these and would explain them to me? Thanks. > > > > > > > Short and simple. > > Xen requires (in most cases *) a modified host and guest kernel and uses > > its own management tools. > > KVM requires certain extensions (Intel VT, AMD Pacifica/SVM **) to be > > present on the host CPU and uses the QEMU front-end. > > > > As for what-to-use, well, a couple of questions: > > A. What type of guest do you plan to virtualize? Windows? Linux? BSD? > > B. Can you used kernel-modified guests? > > C. Are you using VT/SVM enabled hardware? > > D. Do you require additional features beyond "simple" virtualization? > > (E.g. migration, snapshots, etc) > > > > - Gilboa > > * Xen does support VT/SVN enabled hardware - but AFAIK it requires more > > over-head then KVM. > > ** Supported CPU cores: > > Intel: P4 6xx, D9xx, Core Duo, Core 2 Duo, Xeon 3xxx/5xxx/7xxx. > > AMD: Athlon64 AM2, AMD Opteron s1207/1xxx/2xxx/8xxx. > > > > > > -- > > fedora-list mailing list > > fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx > > To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list > > > Gilboa here is the answer to your questions. I would like to use KVM, > if it is possible? Thanks. > A. Windows > B. don't know > C. don't know (I am using a P4 3.0 ghz 800 mhz HT 478) > D. don't know AFAIR the 478 P4 doesn't include the required VT extensions. As such, only QEMU or VMWare Player/Server can be used to run unmodified guests. (Read: Windows) Both are free. QEMU is slower, but GPL. VMWare is (much) faster, but it's close source and as such, if it breaks, your own your own. * - Gilboa * Though in my experience, VMWare server is pretty stable.
