3 ms·

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 choos

• 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.