cloudstack-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nux! <...@li.nux.ro>
Subject Re: Cloudstack 4.2 on XenServer vs KVM
Date Sun, 26 Jan 2014 03:05:56 GMT
On 26.01.2014 00:39, John Mancuso wrote:
> So, I am planning on setting up a brand new cloud infrastructure
> using Cloudstack 4.2 on RHEL6. Cloudstack is hypervisor agnostic- I
> got that... However there are some differences and features that are
> available on XenServer that are not available on KVM. This is from a
> Citrix salesperson:
> 
> "Here is some feedback on the following benefits of using Citrix
> XenServer over KVM:
> 
>   1.  Recurring Volume Snapshots with delta - Citrix XenServer is the
> only hypervisor where recurring snapshots will be deltas (in other
> hypervisors every volume snapshot is full) - this provides significant
> space savings on secondary storage
>   2.  VM snapshots (taking a snapshot of a VM volumes including
> memory state - not possible with KVM which supports only volume
> snapshots)
>   3.  Live Storage Migration is only possible on Citrix XenServer
> (not supported on KVM)
>   4.  Live CPU and Memory Scaling for running instances (not supported 
> on KVM)"
> 
> On the Redhat side they have made it very clear that while Xen is
> still available, KVM is the hypervisor technology they are pushing &
> supporting going forward.
> 
> On the Apache/Citrix side, I get the feeling that from a QA
> perspective CloudStack (and CloudPlatform) is based and tested on
> XenServer and would be preferable in a stable & reliable  Production
> environment.

Hello,

You are mostly correct, those points seem valid and right now Xenserver 
is the better supported hypervisor, it is quite mature and with loads of 
nice features. I'm seriously considering it myself.

Having said that, many clouds deployed nowadays are on KVM; yes it is 
missing some features but it has a huge user base, it's very stable and 
the performance is great; for me the killer feature is that I got a 
"real" OS as hypervisor, an OS that I have used extensively and am quite 
familiar with, for which we have deployment and monitoring infra in 
place etc etc. Additionally, if you want to use more exotic stuff, such 
as GlusterFS, Ceph or whatever crazy thing (CLVM over multiple mpath 
devices?) can run in RHEL/CentOS proper KVM is again the best choice. If 
you want VXLAN you are again limited to KVM afaik.

So it kind of depends on your needs, luckily there are good quality 
options to satisfy most of them.

HTH
Lucian

-- 
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!

Nux!
www.nux.ro

Mime
View raw message