On Thu, 2011-12-22 at 09:01 -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > No virt is crap, it needs to die, its horrid, and any solution aimed > > squarely at virt only is shit and not worth considering, that simple. > > Removing this phrase from context (feel free to object on that basis > to the following inquiry), what are your concerns with virtualization > itself? Is it the fact that having an unknownable operating system under > your feet uncomfortable only, or is there something else? Because virt > is green, it saves silicon. No, you're going the wrong way around that argument. Resource control would save the planet in that case. That's an entirely separate concept from virtualization. Look how much cgroup crap you still need on top of the whole virt thing. Virt deals with running legacy OSs, mostly because you're in a bind and for a host of reasons can't get this super critical application you really must have running on your new and improved platform. So you emulate hardware to run the old os, to run the old app or somesuch nonsense. Virt really is mostly a technical solution to a mostly non-technical problem. There's of course the debug angle, but I've never really found it reliable enough to use in that capacity, give me real hardware with a serial port any day of the week. Also, it just really offends me, we work really hard to make stuff go as fast as possible and then you stick a gigantic emulation layer in between and complain that shit is slow again. Don't do that!! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
