----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dennis Jacobfeuerborn" <dennisml@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Andrew Cathrow" <acathrow@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "Bill Davidsen" <davidsen@xxxxxxx>, xen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, virt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "M A Young" > <m.a.young@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Monday, November 8, 2010 1:59:54 PM > Subject: Re: [fedora-virt] Dom0 xen support in Fedora 15? > On 11/08/2010 06:02 PM, Andrew Cathrow wrote: > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Bill Davidsen"<davidsen@xxxxxxx> > >> To: dlaor@xxxxxxxxxx > >> Cc: xen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, virt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "M A > >> Young"<m.a.young@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Sent: Monday, November 8, 2010 11:52:08 AM > >> Subject: Re: [fedora-virt] Dom0 xen support in Fedora > >> 15? > >> Dor Laor wrote: > >>> On 11/08/2010 04:55 AM, M A Young wrote: > >>> > >>>> I am trying to work out whether it is practical to propose Dom0 > >>>> xen > >>>> support as a feature for Fedora 15. > >>>> > >>>> The kernel situation is that Domain 0 has been accepted upstream > >>>> for > >>>> 2.6.37. Assuming a 3 month kernel release cycle, F15 will most > >>>> likely ship > >>>> with a 2.6.37.x kernel, with 2.6.38 coming out either after the > >>>> F15 > >>>> release or just before but too late to be included. If the plan > >>>> to > >>>> get key > >>>> xen drivers into 2.6.38 succeeds, then F15 may be become usable > >>>> as > >>>> a > >>>> Domain 0 system at some point during its lifetime as the kernel > >>>> package in > >>>> a Fedora version typically has one major update. > >>>> > >>>> If the kernel team accept backported patches then it might just > >>>> be > >>>> possible to ship F15 with usable Domain 0 support but the > >>>> timescale > >>>> for > >>>> that would be very tight. > >>>> > >>>> The other thing we would need to consider is what needs to be > >>>> done > >>>> to make > >>>> xen friendly enough to be usable by an ordinary user. The page > >>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvopsDom0 contains > >>>> plans > >>>> from > >>>> when dom0 xen support was expected to make a quick return to > >>>> Fedora, but > >>>> they are a couple of years old now so probably need updating. > >>>> > >>>> I think as a minimum we would need a way to add a dom0 enabled > >>>> grub > >>>> entry > >>>> for a kernel, rather than requiring the user to hand edit the > >>>> grub > >>>> file. > >>>> We should also make sure that xen works with the other Fedora > >>>> virtualisation tools. > >>>> > >>>> What do others think about this? For example is it achievable as > >>>> a > >>>> feature, is it too early and better to wait for F16, and what > >>>> else > >>>> should > >>>> we aim to do to make xen usable in Fedora? > >>>> > >>> Have you consider kvm? it's upstream since 2.6.20 and now its more > >>> ready > >>> than ever. > >>> > >> > >> There are some good tutorials which should explain the difference > >> between xen and kvm, particularly the performance and hardware > >> requirements of each. > > > > re: hardware requirements, KVM's requirement for VT-X/AMD-V > > extensions certainly used to be a concern 2-3 years ago but today > > even laptops come with this support. > > And regarding performance they days of Xen outperforming KVM have > > long-since passed. > > Citations needed. I'm not saying what you claim isn't true but without > data > this opinion doesn't carry much weight. > Citations are really needed on both sides of the debate, 2 or 3 year old metrics no longer apply. Vendors published benchmarks are typically questionable, they focus on their products strengths and their competitors weakness. The only hope for a fair comparison is a vendor neutral set of benchmarks such as SPECvirt http://www.spec.org/virt_sc2010/ But obviously this isn't a simple test to run. > Regards, > Dennis -- xen mailing list xen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen
