5 ms·

An unmentioned benefit of a dedicated server is that you aren't forced to use Linux. Many support FreeBSD, and a few will allow you to run anything you can inst

An unmentioned benefit of a dedicated server is that you aren't forced to use Linux. Many support FreeBSD, and a few will allow you to run anything you can install; OpenBSD, NetBSD, x86 Solaris, or even Windows.

lsc 17y ago
I agree with you, but to be fair, NetBSD and OpenSolaris run quite well as a paravirtualized xen guests. (irritatingly, most providers don't support them. Even I don't support OpenSolaris, due to bootloader weirdness I haven't quite figured out how to safely integrate into my system.) There are also obvious security benefits to running on unshared physical hardware, as Theo likes to point out.
mynameishere 17y ago
http://aws.amazon.com/windows/ http://aws.amazon.com/windows/
lamnk 17y ago
AFAIK you can run FreeBSD and of course Windows on KVM The only requirement is your CPU's full virtualization support. A lot of CPU recently are capaple of hardware virtualization, except low end processors.
- lsc 17y ago
  you can under HVM mode in xen, too. Full virtualization, though, in it's current state, is inferior to paravirtualization. Significantly so. This may change as hardware advances, but right now, you are much better off going with something that can run paravirtualized.
  - lamnk 17y ago
    Full virtualization, though, in it's current state, is inferior to paravirtualization Do you have benchmarks to back it up ? Is performance the reason to choose Xen over KVM and other virtualization technologies for your hosting company ? Some benchmarks after quick google: http://virt.kernelnewbies.org/XenVsKVM http://virt.kernelnewbies.org/XenVsKVM
    - lsc 17y ago
      reliability even more than performance. KVM was not even close to production ready in '05. HVM mode under xen was also crap. I expect 3 year uptime; running some 'qemu with hardware support' (which really is what both xen hvm and quemu are) just could not deliver that at the time. Also emulated devices leave a much larger attack surface from the domU -> dom0 host. I am sure that KVM has improved a whole lot in the last few years, but most of the people using it seem to be using it for 'primarily use box as hardware, spin up a virtual to test something' (this, I think, is why the kernel guys like it so much... that is what they need, and KVM is much better than Xen if that is your use case.) I really need a 'dedicated virtualization server' - the hardware only exists to service virtuals. If I had some time, I'd do some benchmarks; I'd be interested to see what the backends the kernelnewbies bench uses... for example using tap: or phy: is sometimes an order of magnitude less bad than using file:// (of course, sometimes you get caching going in the dom0, and file:/ looks faster, but it's still a really bad idea.) I did start with FreeBSD jails, but switched to xen after I found just what a bad idea sharing pagecache is.
JoachimSchipper 17y ago
I can personally attest to the fact that ServerPronto, at least, lets you run OpenBSD. (Of course, you'll have to upgrade from their very old version yourself, and I presume support won't know much about it. But it works, about as well as can be expected for the price, and most virtualization doesn't.)

lsc 17y ago

I agree with you, but to be fair, NetBSD and OpenSolaris run quite well as a paravirtualized xen guests. (irritatingly, most providers don't support them. Even I don't support OpenSolaris, due to bootloader weirdness I haven't quite figured out how to safely integrate into my system.) There are also obvious security benefits to running on unshared physical hardware, as Theo likes to point out.

mynameishere 17y ago

http://aws.amazon.com/windows/ http://aws.amazon.com/windows/

lamnk 17y ago

AFAIK you can run FreeBSD and of course Windows on KVM The only requirement is your CPU's full virtualization support. A lot of CPU recently are capaple of hardware virtualization, except low end processors.

lsc 17y ago
you can under HVM mode in xen, too. Full virtualization, though, in it's current state, is inferior to paravirtualization. Significantly so. This may change as hardware advances, but right now, you are much better off going with something that can run paravirtualized.
- lamnk 17y ago
  Full virtualization, though, in it's current state, is inferior to paravirtualization Do you have benchmarks to back it up ? Is performance the reason to choose Xen over KVM and other virtualization technologies for your hosting company ? Some benchmarks after quick google: http://virt.kernelnewbies.org/XenVsKVM http://virt.kernelnewbies.org/XenVsKVM
  - lsc 17y ago
    reliability even more than performance. KVM was not even close to production ready in '05. HVM mode under xen was also crap. I expect 3 year uptime; running some 'qemu with hardware support' (which really is what both xen hvm and quemu are) just could not deliver that at the time. Also emulated devices leave a much larger attack surface from the domU -> dom0 host. I am sure that KVM has improved a whole lot in the last few years, but most of the people using it seem to be using it for 'primarily use box as hardware, spin up a virtual to test something' (this, I think, is why the kernel guys like it so much... that is what they need, and KVM is much better than Xen if that is your use case.) I really need a 'dedicated virtualization server' - the hardware only exists to service virtuals. If I had some time, I'd do some benchmarks; I'd be interested to see what the backends the kernelnewbies bench uses... for example using tap: or phy: is sometimes an order of magnitude less bad than using file:// (of course, sometimes you get caching going in the dom0, and file:/ looks faster, but it's still a really bad idea.) I did start with FreeBSD jails, but switched to xen after I found just what a bad idea sharing pagecache is.

JoachimSchipper 17y ago

I can personally attest to the fact that ServerPronto, at least, lets you run OpenBSD. (Of course, you'll have to upgrade from their very old version yourself, and I presume support won't know much about it. But it works, about as well as can be expected for the price, and most virtualization doesn't.)