On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Robert Dinse <nanook@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I've used both Xen and KVM and at least in benchmarks of applications I > did here I didn't see much difference and since KVM is natively supported by > RedHat, that's what I've been using. I used to use Xen. As far as I can tell, I published the first SRPM's for it, back when it was open entirely open source, before Citrix bought it. As far as I can tell, the open source Xen suffers from many of the same problems as KVM and qemu. Namely, the gui and command line tool, "libvirt", is poorly built overburdened debris that does not fulfill *anyone's* standards of a good configuration tool, especially the open source GUI guidelines written by Eric Raymond in his "Luxury of Ignorance" essay. That said, Xen suffers no more from it than KVM does. It also doesn't have the stunningly painful requirements to override NetworkManager and manually configure the bridge device, as documented by me years ago at at https://wikis.uit.tufts.edu/confluence/display/TUSKpub/Configure+Pair+Bonding+and+Bridges+for+KVM+Hypervisor. > Obviously on this list there is mostly Xen users, and I feel like I must > be missing some great advantage so I am curious, those of you who prefer Xen, > why? Personally, I use Virtualbox or corporate supplied VMware these days. Not becuase I don't like open source tools, but because I prefer to spend my subtle confifation time more usefully than working through libvirt and NetworkManager manual, poorly documented, unintegrated confuiguration steps just to get things to work normally. _______________________________________________ CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
