Daniel P. Berrange
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 11:52:08AM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>> Dor Laor wrote:
>>> On 11/08/2010 04:55 AM, M A Young wrote:
>>>> What do others think about this? For example is it achievable as a
>>>> feature, is it too early and better to wait for F16, and what else should
>>>> we aim to do to make xen usable in Fedora?
>>> Have you consider kvm? it's upstream since 2.6.20 and now its more ready
>>> than ever.
>> There are some good tutorials which should explain the difference
>> between xen and kvm, particularly the performance and hardware
>> requirements of each.
> In any case, the question of whether KVM or Xen is best, is not really
> relevant to whether Xen Dom0 has a place in F15. Fedora will welcome any
> software that meets the packaging& licensing guidelines, and has someone
> who is willing to maintain it. So if people want to maintain Xen as an
> alternative virtualization option in Fedora, they're welcome todo so.
> KVM will of course remain the default virt host setup offered in the
Fine. The point I was making is that a non-trivial user base has
hardware which does not support KVM, both legacy and recent low end CPUs
like ATOM (and Celeron, I believe). And there is a fair amount of old
hardware which does support KVM, but not all that well, like Q6600,
which benefit from using xen. So while KVM may be a choice for recent
hardware, there is a user base which would benefit
from having xen.
And I would hope that the installer would be clever enough to see if KVM
is supported and offer xen if not. Doesn't need to be default, available
"We can't solve today's problems by using the same thinking we
used in creating them." - Einstein
virt mailing email@example.com://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/virt