| Re: Xen vs. OpenVZ: live migration [message #3625 is a reply to message #3623] |
Wed, 07 June 2006 15:27   |
|
|
| Quote: |
I'm trying to decide between Xen and OpenVZ. Live migration is quite the "killer app" and now that OpenVZ supports it I have some questions...
|
IMHO although live migration is the killer feature this is not the only feature of virtualization, and this is definitely not the feature you use every day. So, to decide which technology is best for you, you need to do a complex evaluation of both Xen and OpenVZ, find out their strengths and weaknesses.
To my mind, the good side of Xen is ability to run different kernels and different OSs (Linux side-by-side to NetBSD, for example). So if you really want to use the different kernels on the same piece of hardware, Xen is your choice.
From the other side, OpenVZ's single kernel approach results in better density, scalability, ability to do mass management and dynamically change all the resources.
Also, search this forum for Xen to get an idea of what users are saying on the Xen vs. OpenVZ subject.
| Quote: |
* How fast (your best guess) is it over a gigabit network with a typical guest distro? Xen's live migration downtime is microseconds; when I read that OpenVZ has "zero downtime" migration, does that mean it's microseconds, too?
|
This is not really zero downtime -- it is zero downtime from the user's point of view, since user does not see it as a downtime. I guess the delay in processing is a few seconds (non-shared storage scenario). We are improving this time.
| Quote: |
* How does it work without shared hardware? Rsync+SSH?
|
Exactly
| Quote: |
* What if I had shared hardware, would I also need a lock manager, fencing, etc?
|
If you mean shared storage (SAN) -- I do not have any experience with this.
Kir Kolyshkin
|
|
|
|
OpenVZ Forum
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
