Matt Ayres <[email protected]> writes:
> I think the Xen guys would disagree with you on this. Xen claims <3% overhead
> on the XenSource site.
>
> Where did you get these figures from? What Xen version did you test? What was
> your configuration? Did you have kernel debugging enabled? You can't just post
> numbers without the data to back it up, especially when it conflicts greatly
> with the Xen developers statements. AFAIK Xen is well on it's way to inclusion
> into the mainstream kernel.
It doesn't matter. The proof that Xen has more overhead is trivial
Xen does more, and Xen clients don't share resources well.
Nor is this about Xen vs what we are doing. These are different
non conflicting approaches that operating in completely different
ways and solve a different set of problems.
Xen is about multiple kernels.
The alternative is a supped of chroot.
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
