Not to mention it costs $3000 ....<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Andrew Cathrow <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:acathrow@redhat.com">acathrow@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
<br>
----- Original Message -----<br>
> From: "Dennis Jacobfeuerborn" <<a href="mailto:dennisml@conversis.de">dennisml@conversis.de</a>><br>
> To: "Andrew Cathrow" <<a href="mailto:acathrow@redhat.com">acathrow@redhat.com</a>><br>
> Cc: "Bill Davidsen" <<a href="mailto:davidsen@tmr.com">davidsen@tmr.com</a>>, <a href="mailto:xen@lists.fedoraproject.org">xen@lists.fedoraproject.org</a>, <a href="mailto:virt@lists.fedoraproject.org">virt@lists.fedoraproject.org</a>, "M A Young"<br>
> <<a href="mailto:m.a.young@durham.ac.uk">m.a.young@durham.ac.uk</a>><br>
> Sent: Monday, November 8, 2010 1:59:54 PM<br>
> Subject: Re: [fedora-virt] [Fedora-xen] Dom0 xen support in Fedora 15?<br>
> On 11/08/2010 06:02 PM, Andrew Cathrow wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > ----- Original Message -----<br>
> >> From: "Bill Davidsen"<<a href="mailto:davidsen@tmr.com">davidsen@tmr.com</a>><br>
> >> To: <a href="mailto:dlaor@redhat.com">dlaor@redhat.com</a><br>
> >> Cc: <a href="mailto:xen@lists.fedoraproject.org">xen@lists.fedoraproject.org</a>, <a href="mailto:virt@lists.fedoraproject.org">virt@lists.fedoraproject.org</a>, "M A<br>
> >> Young"<<a href="mailto:m.a.young@durham.ac.uk">m.a.young@durham.ac.uk</a>><br>
> >> Sent: Monday, November 8, 2010 11:52:08 AM<br>
> >> Subject: Re: [fedora-virt] [Fedora-xen] Dom0 xen support in Fedora<br>
> >> 15?<br>
> >> Dor Laor wrote:<br>
> >>> On 11/08/2010 04:55 AM, M A Young wrote:<br>
> >>><br>
> >>>> I am trying to work out whether it is practical to propose Dom0<br>
> >>>> xen<br>
> >>>> support as a feature for Fedora 15.<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> The kernel situation is that Domain 0 has been accepted upstream<br>
> >>>> for<br>
> >>>> 2.6.37. Assuming a 3 month kernel release cycle, F15 will most<br>
> >>>> likely ship<br>
> >>>> with a 2.6.37.x kernel, with 2.6.38 coming out either after the<br>
> >>>> F15<br>
> >>>> release or just before but too late to be included. If the plan<br>
> >>>> to<br>
> >>>> get key<br>
> >>>> xen drivers into 2.6.38 succeeds, then F15 may be become usable<br>
> >>>> as<br>
> >>>> a<br>
> >>>> Domain 0 system at some point during its lifetime as the kernel<br>
> >>>> package in<br>
> >>>> a Fedora version typically has one major update.<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> If the kernel team accept backported patches then it might just<br>
> >>>> be<br>
> >>>> possible to ship F15 with usable Domain 0 support but the<br>
> >>>> timescale<br>
> >>>> for<br>
> >>>> that would be very tight.<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> The other thing we would need to consider is what needs to be<br>
> >>>> done<br>
> >>>> to make<br>
> >>>> xen friendly enough to be usable by an ordinary user. The page<br>
> >>>> <a href="https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvopsDom0" target="_blank">https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvopsDom0</a> contains<br>
> >>>> plans<br>
> >>>> from<br>
> >>>> when dom0 xen support was expected to make a quick return to<br>
> >>>> Fedora, but<br>
> >>>> they are a couple of years old now so probably need updating.<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> I think as a minimum we would need a way to add a dom0 enabled<br>
> >>>> grub<br>
> >>>> entry<br>
> >>>> for a kernel, rather than requiring the user to hand edit the<br>
> >>>> grub<br>
> >>>> file.<br>
> >>>> We should also make sure that xen works with the other Fedora<br>
> >>>> virtualisation tools.<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> What do others think about this? For example is it achievable as<br>
> >>>> a<br>
> >>>> feature, is it too early and better to wait for F16, and what<br>
> >>>> else<br>
> >>>> should<br>
> >>>> we aim to do to make xen usable in Fedora?<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>> Have you consider kvm? it's upstream since 2.6.20 and now its more<br>
> >>> ready<br>
> >>> than ever.<br>
> >>><br>
> >><br>
> >> There are some good tutorials which should explain the difference<br>
> >> between xen and kvm, particularly the performance and hardware<br>
> >> requirements of each.<br>
> ><br>
> > re: hardware requirements, KVM's requirement for VT-X/AMD-V<br>
> > extensions certainly used to be a concern 2-3 years ago but today<br>
> > even laptops come with this support.<br>
> > And regarding performance they days of Xen outperforming KVM have<br>
> > long-since passed.<br>
><br>
> Citations needed. I'm not saying what you claim isn't true but without<br>
> data<br>
> this opinion doesn't carry much weight.<br>
><br>
<br>
Citations are really needed on both sides of the debate, 2 or 3 year old metrics no longer apply.<br>
Vendors published benchmarks are typically questionable, they focus on their products strengths and their competitors weakness.<br>
The only hope for a fair comparison is a vendor neutral set of benchmarks such as SPECvirt <a href="http://www.spec.org/virt_sc2010/" target="_blank">http://www.spec.org/virt_sc2010/</a><br>
But obviously this isn't a simple test to run.<br>
<br>
<br>
> Regards,<br>
> Dennis<br>
<font color="#888888">--<br>
xen mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:xen@lists.fedoraproject.org">xen@lists.fedoraproject.org</a><br>
<a href="https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen" target="_blank">https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen</a><br>
</font></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Dave Costakos<br>mailto:<a href="mailto:david.costakos@gmail.com">david.costakos@gmail.com</a><br>