Don't guess - second source it:
- type I xen vmm
- xen client initiative (xci) @ xen.org
- Graphics pass thru
- Direct-I/O a.k.a. Intel VT-d
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Roaring XenServer
The Porsche of hypervisors? XenServer. [...] It outperformed Hyper-V and ESX in most categories.
You'll notice that we also did a separate test with ESX, using memory overcommit to determine the effect on performance. [...] so we felt it would be valuable to show you the performance hit on your datacenter while it's in use.
Keep in mind that Rick, the author, is a confirmed VMware man, and uses ESX extensively on his production network.
[Keith Ward -- http://virtualizationreview.com/blogs/weblog.aspx?blog=3556]
You'll notice that we also did a separate test with ESX, using memory overcommit to determine the effect on performance. [...] so we felt it would be valuable to show you the performance hit on your datacenter while it's in use.
Keep in mind that Rick, the author, is a confirmed VMware man, and uses ESX extensively on his production network.
[Keith Ward -- http://virtualizationreview.com/blogs/weblog.aspx?blog=3556]
Monday, March 02, 2009
to commoditize or not?
After a few suggestions from the virtualization community to either drop Xen VMM for Hyper-V or to build tools on top of vmkernel let's hear yet another proposal
(1) acknowledging vrc's (http://www.virtualrealitycheck.net/) performance studies showing xenserver kernel outperforming vmkernel with xenapp workload and hypervisor scalability
(2) reinforming SAP's choice for XenServer easily doubling workload compared to physical machines (SAP XenServer/XenApp case study).
(3) saluting the growing number of partners in the Xen(Server) ecosystem: Intel, HP, Dell, NetApp, DataCore, Symantec, Vizioncore, Fujitsu-Siemens ...
(4) confirming Xen-kernel to be the foundation of XenServer, XenDesktop, XenClient, Xen Cloud C3, Hosted Xen et all
(5) embracing Xen communities development efforts
isn't it time for VMware to drop vmkernel in favor of xen-kernel?
(a) there were claims that binary translation (BT) is better than paravirtualization(PV). who has adopted vmi and paravirt_ops respectively
(b) We've seen corporate proof that PV performs better than BT -- pickup up here
(c) independent consultants prove better performance of Xen(Server) kernel
(d) Paul claimed they have 2.500 people in R&D. From a business perspective wouldn't it make sense to leverage the xen hypervisor development community and focus in house development on management tools?
(1) acknowledging vrc's (http://www.virtualrealitycheck.net/) performance studies showing xenserver kernel outperforming vmkernel with xenapp workload and hypervisor scalability
(2) reinforming SAP's choice for XenServer easily doubling workload compared to physical machines (SAP XenServer/XenApp case study).
(3) saluting the growing number of partners in the Xen(Server) ecosystem: Intel, HP, Dell, NetApp, DataCore, Symantec, Vizioncore, Fujitsu-Siemens ...
(4) confirming Xen-kernel to be the foundation of XenServer, XenDesktop, XenClient, Xen Cloud C3, Hosted Xen et all
(5) embracing Xen communities development efforts
isn't it time for VMware to drop vmkernel in favor of xen-kernel?
(a) there were claims that binary translation (BT) is better than paravirtualization(PV). who has adopted vmi and paravirt_ops respectively
(b) We've seen corporate proof that PV performs better than BT -- pickup up here
(c) independent consultants prove better performance of Xen(Server) kernel
(d) Paul claimed they have 2.500 people in R&D. From a business perspective wouldn't it make sense to leverage the xen hypervisor development community and focus in house development on management tools?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)