| 1 |
On Sat, 2009-09-05 at 13:58 +0800, Xi Shen wrote: |
| 2 |
> xen requires your cpu support hardware virtulization. and i only heard |
| 3 |
> it support windows, but i do not know how well it supports. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
Both statements are so very far from the truth: |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Firstly, PV Xen guests require no hardware virtualization support, run |
| 8 |
at near-native performance and require very little resources from the |
| 9 |
host since it doesn't have to "emulate" hardware. Secondly you can run |
| 10 |
*many* PV-enabled OS's but not Windows. Windows is actually one of the |
| 11 |
guests that you can't run para-virtualized and for that you *do* need |
| 12 |
virtualization support in the hardware. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> if you like vmware, why do not try vmware-server 2.0. it is in the |
| 15 |
> overlay, and it works very well for me. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
But what I don't understand is, why aren't people using |
| 18 |
KVM/virt-manager*? It's smaller and faster than VMWare Server, at |
| 19 |
least the last time I used VMWare. Since switching to KVM I haven't |
| 20 |
looked back. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
* KVM does require hardware virtualization support, but since 2006 I |
| 24 |
haven't purchased a machine that *didn't* have support for it. |
Archives