> Xen
> From the CentOS side it's very similar to KVM if you use the virt
> tools. Performance is extremely good with paravirtualized machines.
> It's a workhorse and quite stable, but the GUI is not so great.
> Networking is a bear to configure. Requires separate kernel. I've
> never quite gotten the Xen migration to work.
There is also the XenServer distribution from Citrix. I use that for a
number of customer projects and have found it to be the most stable,
featureful and easiest server grade hypervisor solution. The base feature
set is free (like ESXi) but you do get a few more features. The officially
supported management console is Windows only, but there is a Linux port
available that I've heard works well.
I've had no problems at all with the networking support using XenServer...
and that is one of the reasons I use it, in fact. Xen in general has better
hardware support than VMWare.
If you need to build virtual appliances or are looking for virtual
appliances to use for it, though, VMWare and even the regular old Xen on to
of Centos/whatever has more support than XenServer.
Just FYI.
---------------------------------
Geoff Galitz
Blankenheim NRW, Germany
http://www.galitz.org/
http://german-way.com/blog/
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
