Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Xen To Become Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the one-of-us-one-of-us dept.

Open Source 62

jrepin writes "The Linux Foundation, the nonprofit organization dedicated to accelerating the growth of Linux, today announced the Xen Project is becoming a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project. Linux Foundation Collaborative Projects are independently funded software projects that harness the power of collaborative development to fuel innovation across industries and ecosystems. The Xen Project is an open source virtualization platform licensed under the GPLv2 with a similar governance structure to the Linux kernel. Designed from the start for cloud computing, the project has more than a decade of development and is being used by more than 10 million users. As the project experiences contributions from an increasingly diverse group of companies, it is looking to The Linux Foundation to be a neutral forum for providing guidance and facilitating a collaborative network."

cancel ×

62 comments

Creamy Mayonnaise (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43455553)

Ingredients
1 egg yolk
1/2 teaspoon fine salt
1/2 teaspoon dry mustard
2 pinches sugar
2 teaspoons fresh squeezed lemon juice
1 tablespoon white wine vinegar
1 cup oil, safflower or corn

Directions
In a glass bowl, whisk together egg yolk and dry ingredients. Combine lemon juice and vinegar in a separate bowl then thoroughly whisk half into the yolk mixture. Start whisking briskly, then start adding the oil a few drops at a time until the liquid seems to thicken and lighten a bit, (which means you've got an emulsion on your hands). Once you reach that point you can relax your arm a little (but just a little) and increase the oil flow to a constant (albeit thin) stream. Once half of the oil is in add the rest of the lemon juice mixture.

Continue whisking until all of the oil is incorporated. Leave at room temperature for 1 to 2 hours then refrigerate for up to 1 week.

Re:Creamy Mayonnaise (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43455671)

You fucking faggot nerds don't know quality when you see it.

Go back to your rooms and masturbate, while thinking about guys.

Re:Creamy Mayonnaise (1, Interesting)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about a year ago | (#43455725)

I think I know what is going on here... search engine gaming. If you search for "In a glass bowl, whisk together egg yolk and dry ingredients", you come across http://www.themiraclewhisk.com/recipe.html [themiraclewhisk.com] . I'm guessing this kind of garbage is used to rank these websites higher in the search engines

Re:Creamy Mayonnaise (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43455893)

I think I know what is going on here... search engine gaming. If you search for "In a glass bowl, whisk together egg yolk and dry ingredients", you come across http://www.themiraclewhisk.com/recipe.html [themiraclewhisk.com] . I'm guessing this kind of garbage is used to rank these websites higher in the search engines

Neat experiment. Let's take it a step further. If i google search the entire recipe, an Alton Brown recipe for mayonnaise shows up.

Death to Alton for search engine gaming.

Re:Creamy Mayonnaise (0)

magic maverick (2615475) | about a year ago | (#43459023)

But if something is at -1, it won't show up in the search rankings at all I don't think.

Here's something a friend told me. They posted a horrid post, and included a pretty unique string. It got modded -1 of course. They then tried to search for it again, and got no results.

Try it and see.

Micro$hit (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43455577)

Suck it Micro$hit! Your reign of terror over the computer industry is dead!

Wouldn't KVM... (2)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year ago | (#43455629)

Wouldn't KVM be the most natural fit for a Linux virtualization project? Or are we talking about something other than Xen virtualization project here?

Re:Wouldn't KVM... (4, Interesting)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about a year ago | (#43455889)

Wouldn't KVM be the most natural fit for a Linux virtualization project? Or are we talking about something other than Xen virtualization project here?

Xen has been around longer, as I understand it, and at one time I used it in para-virtualization mode because running Linux VMs on the non-assist hardware I had at the time was very painful, performance-wise. I still have 1 VM host running para-virtualized.

For a while it appeared that Red Hat - one of Xen's initial promoters - was going to drop Xen for KVM, but they seem to have been retreating from that. At any rate, recent RHEL kernels are easier for me to work with using Xen than KVM, for the most part. Don't take that as meaning much, however, since Xen is where I have a lot more practice.

Re:Wouldn't KVM... (1)

Reschekle (2661565) | about a year ago | (#43455961)

RHEV uses KVM [wikipedia.org] . With that said, I believe (haven't checked recently though) that Red Hat still supports running RHEL as a guest inside of a KVM hypervisor.

Re:Wouldn't KVM... (1)

Reschekle (2661565) | about a year ago | (#43455971)

(A Xen hypervisor, rather)

Re:Wouldn't KVM... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43456967)

RHEL6 came around at a rather nasty time when Xen upstream wasn't publishing its patchsets for the kernel separately anymore and instead was working on getting Xen in the mainline kernel -- which did happen but not by the time of 2.6.32 that it uses. RHEL6 is likely to be a little anomalyous in that it can't out-of-the-box act as a Xen host (compiling your own more recent kernel isn't an insurmountable task though) -- RHEL5 can be a Xen host and it's fairly likely that RHEL7 will be able to as well.

Re:Wouldn't KVM... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43458067)

... RHEL5 can be a Xen host and it's fairly likely that RHEL7 will be able to as well.

Do you have some kind of evidence supporting this, or is this a complete guess?

Re:Wouldn't KVM... (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about a year ago | (#43471063)

If "Xen host" means "dom0", there are a whole string of OS releases in the Red Hat family that cannot run a dom0. They keep saying that the "next" Fedora release will be able to host a dom0, but they've been saying that since about Fedora 8, I think.

Re:Wouldn't KVM... (1)

VeryBest52 (2897689) | about a year ago | (#43456083)

+1 for this. Why KVM?

Re:Wouldn't KVM... (3, Informative)

styrotech (136124) | about a year ago | (#43456829)

This isn't the Linux Foundation going looking for a virtualisation project and picking Xen.

From what I've read, this is the open source Xen community asking Citrix if the open source project can shift to being run by an independent foundation, Citrix agreeing to that, and the Xen community picking the Linux Foundation as the best fit.

I'm sure that if Redhat wanted to move KVM to the Linux Foundation, that would be able to happen too. It would be like eg the Apache Foundation managing 'competing' projects just fine.

The Xen community felt that this move will make it easier for other companies and developers to contribute to the open source Xen project, and hope that it will improve collaboration with other projects etc etc.

Citrix still has its commercial XenServer product, and will presumably still employ developers to work on the open source Xen. But the management of the open source project is now independent from Citrix.

Personally I think it's a good move - after all Xen is running an awful lot of hosting/cloud providers out there.

Re:Wouldn't KVM... (2)

burne (686114) | about a year ago | (#43457107)

Well.. I have 1648 paying Xen-customers and 1 paying KVM-customer.

If it were my money I'd go for Xen. Like I did.

(for context: the average customer pays roughly $100 per month..)

Re:Wouldn't KVM... (2)

jawtheshark (198669) | about a year ago | (#43459099)

Recently I got myself a nice little rackmount for experiments at home. My own little computer lab, so to say. Now, at work we use Xen: basically Debian Dom0 with lots and lots of Debian DomU. I think we have exactly one Windows server in a DomU. It's a simple situation, really.

Given I read on serveral forums that KVM is "the preferred Linux virtualization technology", I'd thought: Well, why not use that instead. Now, I admit, I was too lazy to read the manpages, but from the How-To's I read, this is much closer to something like VirtualBox. There are serveral tools to create the VM, and you need to go through the whole installation process in a console. That's okay for a one-off installation. Sure, you can clone an existing image.

On Xen? Make an LVM partition (or if you have a SAN, use that... Basically: give it a block device), create a configuration file (manually, it's pretty human-readable), format it from the DomU, then run debootstrap on it, then modify a few files, and... start it up... done. No additional bootloaders needed, no console installation process: Just a filesystem with a Linux installation. Heck, I have scripted this. Works wonderfully.

I didn't manage to find a way to do it as easy as this on KVM. I'm sure it exists, and I've found some HowTo's hinting to it being able to be done. I'm sure I didn't look long enough and deep enough into it. It most certainly is my fault. However, I went back to Xen for my toy server, because it is so insanely simple to manage (from the command line, I don't need or want graphical interfaces for this).

Re:Wouldn't KVM... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43460051)

I would say your experience is biasing you. The same exact procedure (obviously the scripts have different contents) can be done to automate a KVM install.

Re:Wouldn't KVM... (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | about a year ago | (#43460349)

Yes, I admitted that. Are there any howto's you can point to?

I didn't even need to wait for "cloud computing" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43455661)

harness the power of collaborative development to fuel innovation across industries and ecosystems

BINGO!

Re:I didn't even need to wait for "cloud computing (2)

nametaken (610866) | about a year ago | (#43456411)

Damn you. I'm still missing "synergistic".

Xen's biggest obstacle right now (4, Interesting)

skids (119237) | about a year ago | (#43455687)

...from my own anecdotal perspective, is that VMs are very often used as a way to isolate commercial software products into their own little box where they don't have to play nice with other applications on the box -- and which VM's are supported for these products depends entirely on the vendor. Major vendors who have these products are only just now beginning to think beyond VMWare, and when they do, they are thinking HyperV before Xen. Not many shops want to be supporting more than one virtualization suite -- the only reason they do is because some vendors demand VMWare for their crap, and the price difference between that and supporting a second suite is workable. Once the VMWare premium is out of the picture, because vendors went to HyperV, there will be less of a compelling reason to maintain support for a second suite.

So closed source software vendors may dictate which suite wins between HyperV and Xen.

Re:Xen's biggest obstacle right now (0)

geek (5680) | about a year ago | (#43455845)

...from my own anecdotal perspective, is that VMs are very often used as a way to isolate commercial software products into their own little box where they don't have to play nice with other applications on the box -- and which VM's are supported for these products depends entirely on the vendor.

Which is fucking stupid when you can do the same with with jails in FreeBSD and not have the ridiculous VM overhead, licensing costs (VMWare I'm talking about you you fucking assholes) and bullshit associated with virtualization.

I use VM's all the time and every time I do I think to myself "Why in the hell is my employer paying for this shit?"

Re:Xen's biggest obstacle right now (1, Interesting)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43455931)

Because no commercial software supports BSD?
Hell, for a laugh one time try to explain to a vendor you want to chroot their commercial product.

Those kinds of shit software are why we having all these workarounds.

Re:Xen's biggest obstacle right now (1)

cheater512 (783349) | about a year ago | (#43456931)

People are still buying crap like that? They kinda get what they deserve.

Re:Xen's biggest obstacle right now (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43460549)

All the time.
The people buying it are not the ones implementing it.

OpenVZ (5, Insightful)

Tobia Conforto (2818827) | about a year ago | (#43456025)

OpenVZ [openvz.org] is very much like jails for Linux. I introduced it at my job four years ago and we've been using it ever since. I can attest to the savings in hardware overhead and in sysadmin time, compared to the alternatives of either full-blown VMs or all-services-in-one-Linux-box.

Nowadays there is also LXC [sourceforge.net] , which supposedly is the future for Linux jails, seeing as their patch-set got into the mainline kernel—something OpenVZ failed to achieve. But IMHO LXC is not as stable and reliable as OpenVZ, nor as well-isolated by default, which is an aspect that is too often neglected.

Re:OpenVZ (2)

MyHair (589485) | about a year ago | (#43457235)

Things may have changed in the past couple of years, but I distro-upgraded-before-I-looked from Ubuntu Hardy LTS to Lucid LTS and found that the OpenVZ components were removed and LXC components added which threw me for a few loops on my home containers [itkia.com] . At the time I found LXC to be lacking in tools and documentation, and OpenVZ wasn't being supported in a sane way. I had enough troubles with Lucid in containers that I put everything on a hard box and later moved all of it to Windows and Ubuntu-in-Hyper-V. But once LXC has decent tools and documentation I might look into it again. Sharing a kernel was very handy for my home sites.

Re:OpenVZ (1)

myowntrueself (607117) | about a year ago | (#43457827)

What happens if you have a bunch of OpenVZ 'virtual machines' running apache webservers and, on the host, you run 'killall -9 apache'?

Re:Xen's biggest obstacle right now (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43456049)

I agree that VMWare will run you nontrivial money; but the 'overhead' argument leaves me more skeptical these days.

I don't deny that there is some, but now that hardware-assistance for virtualization is effectively obligatory in modern hardware, it isn't huge. Compared to the convenience features that you don't get with OS-level segregation(trivial snapshot/rollback, and migration from host to host being the big ones, it's just hard to get worked up about.

Certainly, if I were looking at a much bigger, much more homogenous, workload, I'd be much more worried about what I'm eating on VM overhead, and whether the virtualization software provider has really earned that slice of the per-machine cost; but for small/medium and fairly heterogenous loads, the number of CPU cycles that are sacrificed to make my life easier and more convenient just doesn't seem that serious.

Re:Xen's biggest obstacle right now (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43456089)

Agree 1000%. We have a fairly large VMWare cluster. Okay, maybe not that large, but it consists of 6*4U quad-socket, 8 core per socket servers with 512GB of RAM each. You can host a lot of stuff with that.

What has happened is that any time a user says they need a new source code repo, a new application, another build server for their project, or whatever, is that we just spin up another virtual machine for them. That's how our IT middle management has sold this solution to our executives (being able to provide computing resources to the company on-demand with a rapid turnaround).

What gets forgotten in all of this is that nobody does any proper engineering of the applications being ran to see if they need the resources being requested, or if they could be combined with other applications and run on the same instance. (For example, there is absolutely no need to have three separate CVS servers, two git servers, and two Perforce servers). Then we have users who for political reasons demand that they be given a software build environment for their project that is isolated from the build environment for another project. A quick analysis of resource usage statistics does not justify the creation of additional servers. Regardless, all of these requests are acquiesced to to make the other departments in the company happy.

Then you have all of the old physical servers. Normally when a server gets long in the tooth, it's time to upgrade the application and put it on new hardware. Now with virtualization, we just take the same outdated application and simply P2V it, and it continues being the same unsupportable mess that it was before, now only it's running on stable hardware (a small positive to all of this I guess).

Re:Xen's biggest obstacle right now (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about a year ago | (#43460243)

That situation right there is why block-level dedup on your VMware storage is awesome. Oh, you want another server? I'll just spin up this template that is exactly the same as the other ones, which will de-dupe and the only data being written is what changes from every other server already on the host.

Yes, it doesn't save the additional CPU and memory of having yet another OS there, but it helps.

Re:Xen's biggest obstacle right now (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43456523)

Can jails do live migration between hosts?
How about live storage migration? (awesome when it comes time to migrate to a new SAN)
Do they have a centralized management software that in the case of a hardware failure auto starts the jail on another machine?
Templates?
Snapshots?
Dynamic resource management (i.e. CPU is busy on this machine, migrate the more idle VMs to another host to increase performance for the busy app)?
Built in APIs for deploying new jails?
Shared storage devices across physical hosts? (could be done with jails, but it would have to be setup on any host machine that you were going to run the jail on ahead of time)
Separation of all system libraries so that updating the main host/any of the jails doesn't affect code running in your jails?

Using virtualization also means that you can do things like apply a Windows datacenter license to a host, which means you can spin up as many Windows VMs for no extra cost on that host. I believe RedHat does the same for RHEL if you are running on RHEV. There may be plenty overhead, but if it was a big application that needs that much CPU power you should probably have it on bare metal anyways, which means that VMs are often your more idle machines.

Re:Xen's biggest obstacle right now (2)

Bruce Perens (3872) | about a year ago | (#43457749)

I had a customer who thought I was crazy for suggesting that all they really needed was chroot for their particular task. In the face of VMs people don't realize that simplicity often works better.

Re:Xen's biggest obstacle right now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43456233)

...from my own anecdotal perspective, is that VMs are very often used as a way to isolate commercial software products into their own little box where they don't have to play nice with other applications on the box --

Yes, among other things, virtualization is a solution to modern operating systems requiring way too much of a cooperative effort to run applications alongside each other on the same platform.

Your first step to recovery is admitting that Linux, as well as Windows suffers from this problem.

Re:Xen's biggest obstacle right now (2)

pscottdv (676889) | about a year ago | (#43456447)

Perhaps, but I have found that I can very often use a chroot jail when some would use a virtual machine. It takes more knowledge to set up, but generally performs better and can interact with applications on the native platform.

Re:Xen's biggest obstacle right now (1)

styrotech (136124) | about a year ago | (#43456897)

I think you're correct if you're talking about Citrix's commercial XenServer product whose main market would be enterprise users.

But this is about the open source Xen hypervisor project. It's main deployment is with cloud and VPS hosting providers eg Amazon, Rackspace, Linode etc. And it is doing well in that world.

And now that the open source Xen is free from Citrix, ongoing development shouldn't be as dependent on Citrix's fortunes with XenServer.

Re:Xen's biggest obstacle right now (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#43457357)

So closed source software vendors may dictate which suite wins between HyperV and Xen.

This may be true in traditional enterprise IT, but when you've got a fully-open stack (lower case) platform, the argument to tying down your hypervisor layer with licensing, when nothing else is so-encumbered, is going to be a very tough sell. Though to be fair, XenServer gets you some of the benefits of Xen, with extra licensing if that's your cup o' tea.

Re:Xen's biggest obstacle right now (1)

Bruce Perens (3872) | about a year ago | (#43457725)

Xen's biggest obstacle right now is KVM. I am no VM expert, but I've been impressed with how well KVM runs, supporting non-VM-aware versions of Microsoft Windows among other things. It's really fun to put that Windows screen on the face of someone's iPad and watch them freak out when they see it's not a screenshot, somehow their iPad got Windows 7 installed on it!

Never worked with Cloud computing? (1)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | about a year ago | (#43458001)

Sorry, no. Closed software Vendors will be looking at their product running on large scale cloud providers like EC2, IBMs cloud and maybe MicroSoft Azure if it will ever get out of Beta. This means that they will possibly be looking at supporting HyperV, but not after they will be able to run on both Xen and KVM. EC2 will be a much more interesting target and they happen to be running Xen. Something like this is way more important than supporting some silly company that wants to run their linux boxes on HyperV, or supporting Azure. Economy of scale dictates you'll want to support the stuff most of your customers are running, not some niche.

A lot of VMs are also set up for security reasons, not just because the app won't "play nice with other applications on the box". Vendors that refuse to make software that behaves tend to sell very little software these days. However, securing a box that has to run a lot of different workloads is inherently more difficult and any security incident will have a much larger impact, compared to a set of VMs each running in their own security compartment. It just doesn't make sense to run the departmental file server on the same box as you're running your company web server from a security standpoint.

Re:Never worked with Cloud computing? (1)

skids (119237) | about a year ago | (#43462425)

You may be right, the segment wanting to target e.g. EC2 may be larger and more determinant; OP is just what I see from my perspective. The apps in question are not something you'd put on the cloud except possibly as emergency backup instances. There are of course some insane people that do put stuff like their LWAP controllers on the cloud, and companies more than happy to sell them on that idea :-/

As to security, VMs are far from it when it comes to the network side. Implementation of dot1br is lagging terribly, and the GRE tunneling stuff lacks hardware acceleration. Someone who knows what they are doing with internal host policy is just as capable of securing such a setup as you describe -- which method is right depends on the tradeoffs involved. Do you really need live snapshots of your FTP server? If not, it might not merit a VM.

(It is all a bit silly as we see where this is going: eventually VM instances will need to become lighter, resulting in a stripped down OS, which will congeal to essentially being a process, and then we are back full circle to mainframe.)

Re:Xen's biggest obstacle right now (1)

whoever57 (658626) | about a year ago | (#43458273)

Since the majority of servers are running various forms of Linux these days, I have yet to understand the market segment for Hyper-V outside Microsoft-only organizations.

Re:Xen's biggest obstacle right now (1)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about a year ago | (#43459105)

You can run Linux VMs on a Hyper-V host as well. I agree that Hyper-V is better for Windows admins as it's more familiar to them, but after a learning curve, I've got plenty of Linux VMs running perfectly on it.

Re:Xen's biggest obstacle right now (1)

whoever57 (658626) | about a year ago | (#43462291)

I know that you can run Linux VMs under Hyper-V, but why would you? Windows VMs run well under KVM and perform well with the Virtio drivers from Redhat.

Re:Xen's biggest obstacle right now (1)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about a year ago | (#43462599)

When all the other admins are Windows "trained" and the small business gets a lot of money discounted from other Microsoft products (e.g. System Center) by using Hyper-V.

Why not KVM when it has all of the momentum? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43455703)

Are they looking for a challenge in reviving a dead project? Even Red Hat gave-up on XEN.

Re:Why not KVM when it has all of the momentum? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43455797)

Apparently Citrix has now too since they were the last ones to "own" it.

Re:Why not KVM when it has all of the momentum? (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about a year ago | (#43456221)

They're still hiring people in Cambridge to work on Xen server / open stack. So if they're giving up on it, I'd hate to take the job but I would imagine they're not throwing in the towel. It's not like xen is completely unknown and in fact one of the best VPS companies (Linode) use it. I suspect part of it is that it's hard to find people right for the job so why run the risks hiring people when you can give it some credibility with the Linux Foundation and get people working on it for free?

Re:Why not KVM when it has all of the momentum? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43456399)

> one of the best VPS companies (Linode) use it.

Why the hatred for EC2? Amazon has used Xen successfully for years. Why try to disparage Xen by not including them in your list? You agenda is showing through.

Re:Why not KVM when it has all of the momentum? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43518035)

Calling Linode one of the best VPS companies(they are not, not by a mile, but not the point) is hatred for EC2?

Were you dropped on your head repeatedly?

Re:Why not KVM when it has all of the momentum? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43456429)

Linode... one of the best VPS companies?

Maybe one of the biggest, but best is a stretch and a half. Even before this weekends latest hack.

Re:Why not KVM when it has all of the momentum? (3, Interesting)

stox (131684) | about a year ago | (#43455837)

For some workloads, Xen outperforms kvm, and vice versa. It is better for us all to have competing open source solutions than competing against closed source solutions. Also worth noting, Yes Xen was pretty much dead in the water for some time, but since getting their act together and getting support in the mainline kernel, they have been doing very well.

Re:Why not KVM when it has all of the momentum? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43456371)

The only workload KVM can compete with Xen is when a single VM is on the host system, otherwise Xen (unless improperly configured) is going to crush KVM. I wish KVM was faster because it is certainly easier to use, but there's a reason all of the cloud providers (except MS) use Xen. I have no doubt every one of them has benchmarked KVM and found it lacking.

Re:Why not KVM when it has all of the momentum? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43459127)

[citation needed]

Re:Why not KVM when it has all of the momentum? (2)

undeadbill (2490070) | about a year ago | (#43456337)

No, RedHat has been co-opting projects that give it a unique competitive edge. They pretty much own the KVM project, and now they don't have to compete with Citrix on the Xen platform. RHEL dropped support for Xen in version 6, at which point the Linux kernel devs retorted by putting Xen support into the kernel. If Xen was such a dog, then why would the Linux kernel dev team work so hard to keep it?

I'm not downing KVM or Xen. Both work well for their intended purposes. But RHEL's decision probably had more to do with RHEL's commitment to *selling* KVM centric solutions than it had to do with anything else.

Re:Why not KVM when it has all of the momentum? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43456923)

Agreed. They both work well. It is better to have competing open solutions. From RH's PoV, it would not be very practical to support two solutions at the same time.

However one thing I find very uncomfortable with is that, from all the Xen related comments I've read on /. I only read about users spreading FUDs (Xen is dead or something alike), without real comparison against KVM WRT architecture, performance, security etc. (i.e. the real meat) to support their argument.

If "making noise" equals "momentum" or "success", I have to admit RedHat is very good at this. But if you look at Xen's installation base, it is very hard to say Xen is dead. It just keeps low profile and support the world!

Re:Why not KVM when it has all of the momentum? (1)

MrKaos (858439) | about a year ago | (#43460451)

No, RedHat has been co-opting projects that give it a unique competitive edge. They pretty much own the KVM project, and now they don't have to compete with Citrix on the Xen platform. RHEL dropped support for Xen in version 6, at which point the Linux kernel devs retorted by putting Xen support into the kernel.

Coincidentally I have been comparing the two over the last week and have found the Xen project to have fewer barriers to installing and using than the RH KVM. Much of the subscription model of RH makes installing and using KVM quite painful. I'm sure it's great for what it does but it seem the barriers for entry to use it are also quite high.

I'm looking forward to applying SOA tools to Xen as it seem to be quite a good fit.

Re:Why not KVM when it has all of the momentum? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43456745)

RedHat will be so happy to have all-ears customers like you. LOL.

You should probably google a bit more before saying something is "dead". AFAICT Amazon, Rackspace, Linode, Huawei and NSA all use Xen.

Doesn't Amazon... (1)

amginenigma (1495491) | about a year ago | (#43456395)

Doesn't Amazon Web Services run on XEN? A quick googling seems to indicate that AWS does use XEN. If that's the case I'd have to say XEN is far from dead, and that this would be a good thing.

Re:Doesn't Amazon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43471273)

Xen or Cirtix XenServer? ;)

Re:Doesn't Amazon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43476555)

Amazon uses the open source Xen, not XenServer. By the way, XenServer is also built upon the open source Xen.

Coolest use of XEN that I know of- (3, Interesting)

Burz (138833) | about a year ago | (#43457797)

http://qubes-os.org/ [qubes-os.org]

It gives you hardware-enforced security for your desktop.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...