Your decision on what platform to go with depends on your requirements
of course.
Some observations from my end:
Running a non-HVM platform limits you currently to OS where the OS
itself has been para-virtualized. An HVM-enabled platform enables your
future for changes that you may not have planned for at this time.
Also, keep in mind that as you look at the management tools available
for Virtualized environments, you may be tempted to give Windows under
XEN a try and you will only be able to do that if you have an
HVM-enabled server.
If you''re planning to re-deploy an existing server that''s one
thing.
But if you''re going to spend money to get the server, you might as well
set yourself for the future.
HTH.
Jose Betancourt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 13:36:46 +0100
From: "John Hannfield" <hal9020@gmail.com>
Subject: [Xen- users] Should I use HVM?
To: xen-users@lists.xensource.com
Message- ID:
<4d95b0990610080536p62c8cf43vbfa1c52e4745d61a@mail.gmail.com>
Content- Type: text/plain; charset="iso- 8859- 1"
Hi,
I''m thinking of getting a new server, and I''m wondering about
the AMD
2000
series
processor with support for hardware virtualisation. But as I only ever
use
Linux,
is this much of an issue? Everything I have read seems to say HVM is
good
for
running unmodified guest OS''s - like windows. But I only need Linux
which is
already
ported to xen, so do I really need hardware virtualisation? There must
be
other benefits
to using it? But what are they?
Any advice or pointers to more info on using HVM for linux domU''s would
be
useful.
Thanks,
John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-users/attachments/20061008/fc8e6fbf/attachment.htm
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
