Alexander Graf wrote:
1) Migration path. If you could already use KVM on a Xen host, you
could have Xen PV guests and KVM guests in parallel, easing
migration to KVM for customers.
I like this, of course, but we have a path through Xenner. Maybe
this (kvm-on-xen) path will be easier to take.
Oh, I thought Xenner was semi on hold? Is it still actively developed?
I thought Gerd's main goal for now was to get qemu-dm into upstream
qemu for now.
I understood that Xenner is the next thing on the list.
With npt/ept pv performance might be higher running under kvm+xenner
than with software-only Xen by letting the guest kernel access
pagetables directly. Though Gerd had some issues with 64-bit guests
IIRC, which is a pity since it's there that the pv performance hit is
Well that might be true, but I'm not fully convinced yet :-). Either
way with "current" hardware (pre-Nehalem, pre-Barcelona) PV is still
Right, but every day this is becoming less important.
Also, FWIW IO performance on PV Xen is still way superior to KVM.
Please correct me if I stand wrong there.
We still have some work some work to do on virtio, but bandwidth should
be comparable. And it has nothing to do with pv-vs-fv.
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function