Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 11:52:08AM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
>> Dor Laor wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/08/2010 04:55 AM, M A Young wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
> In any case, the question of whether KVM or Xen is best, is not really
> relevant to whether Xen Dom0 has a place in F15. Fedora will welcome any
> software that meets the packaging& licensing guidelines, and has someone
> who is willing to maintain it. So if people want to maintain Xen as an
> alternative virtualization option in Fedora, they're welcome todo so.
> KVM will of course remain the default virt host setup offered in the
> installer
>
Fine. The point I was making is that a non-trivial user base has
hardware which does not support KVM, both legacy and recent low end CPUs
like ATOM (and Celeron, I believe). And there is a fair amount of old
hardware which does support KVM, but not all that well, like Q6600,
which benefit from using xen. So while KVM may be a choice for recent
hardware, there is a user base which would benefit from having xen.
And I would hope that the installer would be clever enough to see if KVM
is supported and offer xen if not. Doesn't need to be default, available
is fine.
--
Bill Davidsen<davidsen@xxxxxxx>
"We can't solve today's problems by using the same thinking we
used in creating them." - Einstein
--
xen mailing list
xen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen
