| 1 |
On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 16:59 +0200, Jean Blignaut wrote: |
| 2 |
> I have recently been investigating different virtualization solutions |
| 3 |
> such as linuxvserver, bsd jails and xen. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> This xen stuff is confusing the heck out of me at first I figured it |
| 8 |
> was similar to a linux vserver setup (which I managed to get working |
| 9 |
> just fine and with out much head scratching) but after a lot of |
| 10 |
> scratching around I not so sure. |
| 11 |
It is almost, but not quite, completely unlike vserver ;-) |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> It seems to me that while vserver is a modded linux kernel that xen is |
| 14 |
> like a micro os that boots first and then boots into your dom0 (your |
| 15 |
> primary os –with xennified kernel- whitch as I understand can control |
| 16 |
> the others) |
| 17 |
yes |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> Also it seems that you could have more than one of these privilidged |
| 20 |
> osses installed at the same time sharing different parts of the |
| 21 |
> hardware. |
| 22 |
in theory yes, I don't know how well that is supported |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> It also seems that with new virtualization features in the latest |
| 25 |
> intel/amd cpus that this hardware level sharing can be taken to a new |
| 26 |
> level and that this would enable xen to run unmodified osses such as |
| 27 |
> doors or freebsd (which currently has no xen dom0 support) |
| 28 |
yes, Xen would act almost exactly like vmware, but without the |
| 29 |
performance penalties |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> My questions are: |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> How would xen domUs compare to vserver? |
| 35 |
Vserver is linux only, low overhead, single kernel image |
| 36 |
Xen is generic and allows multiple independent kernels. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
In Vserver you can see all running processes on the host - in Xen you |
| 39 |
can't because different OSes may be running. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
> How does this hardware sharing stuff work? Would I be able to control |
| 42 |
> the same raid controller from inside several virtual machines at the |
| 43 |
> same time – or in turns if it comes to that? |
| 44 |
No, the "micro OS" presents you abstracted ressources, that's why you |
| 45 |
have to change the kernel. |
| 46 |
Your instance should only see something like "generic block device |
| 47 |
200G" |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
> I suppose that a more usefull example would be the graphics hardware: |
| 50 |
> would you be able to utilize the full potential of your graphics |
| 51 |
> hardware in these virtual machines? |
| 52 |
In theory yes, as far as I know there are still issues with some |
| 53 |
hardware - sound support was broken last time I looked (quite some time |
| 54 |
ago :-) ) |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
wkr, |
| 57 |
Patrick |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
> -- |
| 60 |
> No virus found in this outgoing message. |
| 61 |
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. |
| 62 |
> Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.2/329 - Release Date: |
| 63 |
> 5/2/2006 |
| 64 |
I am a bavarian Virus. Please send me to all contacts in your address |
| 65 |
book and delete your harddisk. |
| 66 |
-- |
| 67 |
Stand still, and let the rest of the universe move |
Archives