[Ilugc] kvm vs Xen vs virtio vs virtualbox vs VMWARE
- From: ilugid@xxxxxxxxx (Ashish Verma)
- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:39:00 -0400
Could you please let me know which of virtulization is mature
kvm vs Xen vs virtio vs virtualbox vs VMWARE
in real production which has more performance and reliability and number of
virtual hosts supported
*First*: There are two ways to virtualize.
1 - Desktop applications used to virtualize: These basically install a
module (which plays the role of a hypervisor) into the running OS and pass
most calls to hardware using that module. These are quite effective for very
*small *business needs / *testing */ *personal *use etc.
2 - Bare metal: These are more like customized kernels combined along with a
Hypervisor and installed as an OS on the hardware. These are *Enterprise
Oriented* solutions.
Now for your question:
*VmWare* is I believe the longest running virtual enterprise solution
provider and considered most reliable for the same.
They provide both Desktop application as well as bare-metal virtualization
solutions. Both are really good/fast/(lot of features) in their respective
arenas.
*XenServer*: Considered next best. They introduced the concept of
para-virtualization. Newer solution compared to VMWare, however it is also
very effective.
XenServer comes as Baremetal solution. They have also tied up with various
companies like Redhat which release a customized Kernel with the Xen
Hypervisor.
*VirtualBox*: This is a desktop solution from SUN (now oracle). This is
fast, but I don't think it has as many features as VmWare desktop solution.
This is *not* a Bare Metal solution.
*Qemu*: Desktop solution. Very Very slow. You will find this, when you try
to install VMs using just Qemu, not kvm-qemu.
*
KVM*: This too is a desktop solution. Basically uses qemu to virtualize,
however, the qemu-kvm module is 100 times faster than just the qemu module.
Again not many features, but good solution.
*Virtio*: I dont know.
Regards,
Ashish
Other related posts:
