Let's step back a bit
Let's step back a bit
Posted Jun 3, 2009 18:06 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)Parent article: Xen again
I've not been following virtualization too closely.
What does Xen do that KVM doesn't? What is missing from both that a "proper" virtualization system for Linux would provide?
Posted Jun 3, 2009 19:03 UTC (Wed)
by Thue (guest, #14277)
[Link] (30 responses)
Posted Jun 3, 2009 19:21 UTC (Wed)
by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
[Link] (18 responses)
So, the important part of Xen, in that it provides something that KVM doesn't have, is already in the kernel. KVM has a hypervisior already in the kernel. The Xen hypervisor is inelegant.
So, is it possible to make the KVM hypervisor support Dom0?
Posted Jun 3, 2009 20:09 UTC (Wed)
by nevets (subscriber, #11875)
[Link] (5 responses)
KVM developers have no interest (nor have they designed KVM) to work with paravirtualization (the thing needed by the OS to support non virtualization supported hardware). Although, I do believe KVM can make use of virtio, but that's another story.
We have enough in the kernel to support a DomU. That is, a true guest.
But Dom0 is a special guest with Xen. The Xen hypervisor passes off the work of drivers to Dom0 to have it do the work. But this interface between Dom0 and the hypervisor is a bit more intrusive than the interface needed by DomU (and already exists).
The issue is that once we add this Dom0 interface, we will forever need to support it. Because any changes we make will break Xen. This is why I suggested having Linux host the Xen source code. Then we can freely change the Dom0<->hypervisor interface without worrying about breaking an external ABI.
Note, my suggestion is not about Xen being inside Linux. It would still be a micro kernel loaded first. But the vmlinuz image would be one. First we load the Xen hypervisor, and then we load Dom0. This will couple the two tightly and the user would not need to worry about incompatibilities.
Posted Jun 4, 2009 8:42 UTC (Thu)
by rwmj (subscriber, #5474)
[Link] (4 responses)
Bruce, this is an interesting and valid point, but it's also a bit like the discussion of 3D rendering that happened in the mid 90s. Sure, 3D graphics cards were rare and expensive at first, and that meant there was a place for software rendering.
Nowadays though no serious 3D program (ie. no game!) comes with a software renderer, because the 3D hardware is everywhere, on motherboards, in open handhelds like the GP2x-Wiz, and even in experimental boards like the ARM-based Beagleboard.
Hardware virt support is in just about every new x86-64 processor that comes out. A few 32 bit netbooks don't have it right now, but it'll come to those too.
Also don't overlook the fact that KVM does have software
emulation. OK, it's slow, it's in userspace, and it relies on qemu. Nevertheless, just running Rich.
Posted Jun 4, 2009 8:43 UTC (Thu)
by rwmj (subscriber, #5474)
[Link]
Posted Jun 4, 2009 12:18 UTC (Thu)
by nye (subscriber, #51576)
[Link]
Posted Jun 4, 2009 17:44 UTC (Thu)
by buchanmilne (guest, #42315)
[Link] (1 responses)
But, an 18-month-old 16-core (8*"Dual Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 885") server (Sun X4600-M1) doesn't have it. With another 5 years of lifetime on these boxes, it really would be nice to keep Xen (which is what they are currently running). There's no way I would migrate this (with heavily utilised VMs) to qemu-kvm ...
Posted Jun 4, 2009 21:28 UTC (Thu)
by jimparis (guest, #38647)
[Link]
Posted Jun 3, 2009 20:10 UTC (Wed)
by dtlin (subscriber, #36537)
[Link]
I haven't tried it out, but running Xen DomU on KVM seems perfectly
possible. In any case, KVM and Xen+HVM are about equal in terms of
guest support.
KVM's "Dom0" is the unmodified Linux kernel, running on bare hardware
— there's nothing special about it. I'm not sure why you'd even
want Xen's Dom0 there?
The "not possible" (unless you're satisfied with QEMU) is what the Xen
supporters are really focusing on.
Posted Jun 3, 2009 20:35 UTC (Wed)
by gwolf (subscriber, #14632)
[Link] (10 responses)
KVM is great, say, if you want to run Windows instances - None of them will know (well, except for the hardware self-description strings) they are running virtualized. Same thing, yes, can be specified to Xen.
However, Xen's paravirtualization funcionality is completely unmatched by KVM - Xen can run DomU (guest) kernels that are explicitly aware they are running under a paravirtualized environment. This, of course, excludes non-free software, as they would have to be ported to the Xen pseudo-architecture. However, it is a very popular way to run completely independent Linux systems.
Why do you want to paravirtualize? Because the performance impact is way lower. You don't have to emulate hardware at all - In a regular virtualization setup, the guest OS will still shuffle bits around to give them to, say, the ATA I/O interface, possibly aligning them to cylinder/head/sector - On a hard disk that just does not exist, that is a file on another filesystem or whatever. When it is paravirtualized, the guest OS just signals the host OS to do its magic.
My favorite way out for most of the cases I would be forced to handle with Xen for this kind of needs is to use vserver - Which is _not_ formally a virtualization technology, but a compartmentalization/isolation technology (akin to what was introduced as the BSD Jails around 2000), where many almost-independent hosts share a single kernel, but live within different security contexts.
Posted Jun 4, 2009 1:59 UTC (Thu)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (9 responses)
Well things like BSD Jails, Vserver, OpenVZ, etc etc. All of these are very much virtualization technology in a very real sense. They just are not hardware virtualization.
> Why do you want to paravirtualize? Because the performance impact is way lower. You don't have to emulate hardware at all - In a regular virtualization setup, the guest OS will still shuffle bits around to give them to, say, the ATA I/O interface, possibly aligning them to cylinder/head/sector - On a hard disk that just does not exist, that is a file on another filesystem or whatever. When it is paravirtualized, the guest OS just signals the host OS to do its magic.
Heh. KVM has paravirt drivers that are built into the kernel right now.
virtio-blk = block driver
And that works fine with updated versions of Qemu also. So you should be able to take advantage of them if your using Kqemu + Qemu for your virtualization. I think. But virtio is a standardized way of doing things. Should probably work with Qemu-dm for Xen stuff.
I there are windows drivers for virtio network. I am not sure about virtio block or balloon though...
I don't know how well KVM + Virtio compares to Xen PV..
Then on top of that you can use AMD's IOMMU or Intel's VT-d to map real hardware directly to virtualized hosts, which would be the fastest possible since your handing off direct access to the hardware.
Posted Jun 4, 2009 7:03 UTC (Thu)
by sf_alpha (guest, #40328)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jun 4, 2009 12:20 UTC (Thu)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link]
You need to have Intel or AMD's virtualization support to take advantage of KVM.
Even with the virtualization support KVM will be slower then PV. Xen's PV is very superior in terms of performance in almost all situations.
KVM's advantages over Xen are:
* Cleaner design. I am guessing that KVM hypervisor code is between 20k-30k with all the arch it supports were Xen's hypervisor code is easily 10x that much.
* Much easier to administrate and deal with. Does not require patches, does not require rebooting or anything of that nature. It's "just there". Does not require special console software or management tools beyond just qemu if that is all you want. You can use top to monitor VMs and crtl-z to pause them if you started them from a terminal, for example.
* Does not require to have your OS "lifted" into a Dom0... The way Linux interacts with the hardware does not change. This means (with latest kernels) I can suspend my laptop while running VMs and it just works.
* Heavily leverage's Linux's existing features. Instead of having to write various peices of hardware support into the hypervisor KVM gets all that and more by default. When Linux does improvements to, say, memory management then people using KVM directly benefit from that work.
* It is already installed and setup on your machine. All you have to do is intall the qmeu portion and the virt-manager or libvirt stuff if you want to have a nice and easy way to manage them. All Linux distributions have KVM support.. it's modules are by default by everything I've looked at.
disadvantages:
* PV on Xen is still easily performance king.
* require some hardware support.
Posted Jun 4, 2009 7:06 UTC (Thu)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link] (4 responses)
Wow, people are still writing 9p code? Given the sad state of http://sourceforge.net/projects/v9fs and http://sourceforge.net/projects/npfs I thought that these projects were stone dead.
I'd really like a network filesystem that is easier to administer than NFS and CIFS... Tried DRBD but didn't like it much. Is v9fs worth a look?
Posted Jun 4, 2009 12:03 UTC (Thu)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (2 responses)
But DRBD is a way of keeping volumes in sync, not so much a file system.
The easiest FS to administer that I know of is sshfs. I use it heavily and it is stable and actually very fast. It can beat NFS even sometimes.. And all you need is Openssh server running and a fuse support in the client. The ssh server is the real gauge on how well sshfs works. Anything other then a relatively recent version of OpenSSH and I doubt the results will be that good.
But if DRBD was even being considured then your needs are going to be specialized. Other alternative to look at could possibly be Redhat's GNBD from GFS or ISCSI.
Posted Jun 4, 2009 19:32 UTC (Thu)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link] (1 responses)
I only mentioned DRBD to illustrate how desperate I've become! It was actually pretty good except that I couldn't get the split brain recovery to work the way I wanted. So close and yet so far. Haven't gotten desperate enough to try AFS yet!
Why doesn't 9p or webdav or some simple protocol take off? It's amazing to me that NFS and CIFS are still state of the art. I guess I don't understand the trade-offs very well.
Posted Jun 4, 2009 20:20 UTC (Thu)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link]
For sshfs if you want to have good performance you need to disable compression. If you think the crypto has to much overhead then change the encryption method to RC4.
Very likely you were running something like 3DES that has very high overhead. And like I said you need to have a relatively recent version of OpenSSH (say a version from the past 2 years or so) for reliable service.
You can set these on a per server basis in your ~/.ssh/config
I have had no problem personally beating NFS when it comes to my personal usage at home over wireless and gigabit link.. although of course this sort of thing is not suitable for large numbers of users.
:)
Posted Jun 4, 2009 14:08 UTC (Thu)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link]
I have an ugly situation where I have a (proprietary) cobol C/ISAM <-> SQL gateway to some cobol accounting files. Due to the brain-deadness of the proprietary vendor (political concerns, their licenscing with their Cobol runtime supplier, yadda, yadda, yadda...), I have to run it virtualized in an old distro and it sees the C/ISAM files via NFS4. It's written to do a lot of fsync'ing and doesn't seem to make any use of any sort of NFS caching, and so latency absolutely kills its performance. I can't use any of the virtio stuff because the guest kernel is too old to support it, and even that has latencies in the hundreds of microseconds. So I'm using the software emulated E1000 driver, which is almost as efficient as virtio.
However, if I could use the 9p shared volume stuff, I suspect, but am not sure, that latency would be much improved. As it stands, it is still over twice as fast as running on a separate machine via NFS4 over 1000baseT.
So far as I know, the 9p-virtio thing is still an active project, but not yet in mainline KVM. Or, at least, it does not seem to be in Ubuntu 9.04 server.
Posted Jun 4, 2009 12:48 UTC (Thu)
by gwolf (subscriber, #14632)
[Link] (1 responses)
Yes, and that's good - I use KVM with paravirt network and disk devices for Windows hosts. Still, many things (i.e. memory access, real CPU mapping, even the kind of architecture the guests report as having) have to be emulated. Paravirt devices are a great boost, though - And by being much simpler, say, than hardware-specific drivers, I am also reducing the most common cause for Windows' instability.
Now, both with Xen and with KVM (and I'd expect with any other virtualization technology) you can forward a real device - Just remove support for it on the host (or Dom0) kernel and ask the virtualizer to forward the needed interrupts/mapped memory space/bus address, and you have it natively inside. Of course, you lose the ability to perform live migrations - But you cannot always win! :)
Posted Jun 10, 2009 17:37 UTC (Wed)
by tmassey (guest, #52228)
[Link]
Where would I get paravirt Windows drivers for KVM?
Posted Jun 3, 2009 20:13 UTC (Wed)
by ncm (guest, #165)
[Link] (7 responses)
Posted Jun 4, 2009 12:56 UTC (Thu)
by gwolf (subscriber, #14632)
[Link] (5 responses)
When I bought my laptop, January 2008, I shopped explicitly for one with virtualization capability. However, for a long time I just was not able to use it as such - Because of the lack of support in Xen for core features I want a laptop to support, such as ACPI (which is mainly useful for laptops, granted, but that could be very well used everywhere, leading to sensible power savings). Virtualization does not only work at the server farm, it can also be very useful at desktops.
Posted Jun 4, 2009 15:42 UTC (Thu)
by TomMD (guest, #56998)
[Link] (3 responses)
YES! And its not just for x86 anymore, but there are architectures that don't have VT or SVM hackery and are perfectly viable users of Xen. I'd love to run Xen on the (ARM based) beagle board or a BB based laptop.
Posted Jun 4, 2009 20:29 UTC (Thu)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (2 responses)
KVM works fine on other architectures (like PowerPC), so that is all a bit of a red herring.
For x86 systems that donnot have VT/SVM you can use Kqemu and get similar functionality and speed.
Posted Jun 9, 2009 2:11 UTC (Tue)
by xyzzy (guest, #1984)
[Link]
Posted Jun 9, 2009 7:50 UTC (Tue)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link]
Posted Jun 7, 2009 10:41 UTC (Sun)
by djao (guest, #4263)
[Link]
I bought my laptop in April 2008 and I've been using it with KVM almost from day one. Everything works great, including ACPI.
Posted Jun 4, 2009 13:28 UTC (Thu)
by ESRI (guest, #52806)
[Link]
Posted Jun 3, 2009 22:21 UTC (Wed)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link] (2 responses)
If you don't have VT support, my understanding is that Xen similarly
So what's the substantive difference?
Posted Jun 3, 2009 23:01 UTC (Wed)
by nevets (subscriber, #11875)
[Link] (1 responses)
I also think the issue is that Xen is still quite a head of KVM in features, but this too is slowing down.
Posted Jun 4, 2009 2:34 UTC (Thu)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link]
YES PV is massively faster then just plain Qemu. Massively faster in all respects. The overhead of Xen PV vs naked hardware is going to be just a few percent.
Of course this requires modification to the guest.
Posted Jun 3, 2009 20:28 UTC (Wed)
by skitching (guest, #36856)
[Link] (3 responses)
The dom0 impl therefore provides services (esp devices) to guests while using services provided by the hypervisor.
KVM is a two-tier system, collapsing the hypervisor and dom0 into one layer.
The advantages of the Xen approach appear to be:
It seems that (4) isn't working out so well in practice though.
The recent suggestion to put a hypervisor implementation into the kernel git tree does seem interesting. AIUI, the suggestion is not to collapse the layers KVM-style; building the kernel would also generate a separate hypervisor image. However because (linux-hypervisor, linux-kernel) are always released as a pair there is no ABI issue. The downside is that no other dom0 implementation would run on that hypervisor, so
Presumably (b) and (c) sink any idea of putting the hypervisor into ROM. And just the idea of modifying the hypervisor in sync with linux changes means that the "auditability" benefit of a hypervisor is mostly lost: it's expensive to "recertify" a hypervisor impl that changes every 6 months.
I'm no expert on this, so all corrections welcome!
Cheers, Simon
Posted Jun 3, 2009 20:58 UTC (Wed)
by nevets (subscriber, #11875)
[Link] (2 responses)
I've heard this argument before, but it has one flaw. It still depends on Dom0. You still need to port Dom0 and audit it too. If you crack Dom0, you cracked the box
2) possible to use same hypervisor with different dom0 impls, eg windows/bsd/solaris as dom0.
I'm not sure this is that big of a deal. As Ted mentioned in an email,
Linux supports more devices than anything else, and makes it the ideal
Dom0.
3) this is the traditional approach, hence more research/experience
Or perhaps its the approach that does not think outside the box.
4) reduces changes needed to an OS to make it a dom0, as some of the virtualization-specific logic is in a separate layer. In particular, one article implied that KVM would have to rework the standard linux scheduler implementation to get good scheduling for guests. I guess this means that xen does at least some scheduling decisions in the hypervisor.
You are right that this is not quite true in practice, as we see.
(a) XenSource would presumably have to maintain two similar-but-not-identical hypervisor implementations,
Keeps them employed.
Actually, if they make the Linux version their main code base, they could
add a kluge layer to interact with other Dom0s.
(b) If someone upgrades their linux kernel, they also need to upgrade the hypervisor to match.
As I stated before. That would happen automatically. You would just install the vmlinuz, and it would load both the new Xen hypervisor along with the new Linux kernel.
(c) If someone switchs to a different dom0 (eg windows) they need to change hypervisor to match.
Or add the kluge layer.
Presumably (b) and (c) sink any idea of putting the hypervisor into ROM.
This point hits the main argument that we have against adding the Dom0 interface. Once it is there, it is set in stone, and we can not change it. Otherwise we will get all those people that loaded their box's ROM with a hypervisor crying to us that they can't run the latest kernel.
The current Dom0 ABI is intrusive and limits the development of Linux. This is the reason it is being rejected. Not to mention that it also comes with a certain degree of performance overhead when not in use.
If the Dom0 ABI were to come in without the Xen hypervisor, then it must be clean, and not scattered through out the kernel.
And just the idea of modifying the hypervisor in sync with linux changes means that the "auditability" benefit of a hypervisor is mostly lost: it's expensive to "recertify" a hypervisor impl that changes every 6 months.
Again, if you do not audit the Dom0 you are wasting your time. If you need to audit the hypervisor, pick a image, and audit it. You better audit the Dom0 in use too. Then after that is done, don't upgrade.
Posted Jun 4, 2009 6:28 UTC (Thu)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link]
Ya.. it starts up like that. But it rarely stays like that.
In the case of Xen I think your looking at about 300-400K lines of code in a full-featured version.
In the case of KVM the initial patch was about 12K loc and was accepted almost immediately into the kernel code. (quite a achievement)
Posted Jun 4, 2009 7:45 UTC (Thu)
by sf_alpha (guest, #40328)
[Link]
For Xen, Xen Hypervisor is a controller too grant access Real hardware/cpus, but Dom0 is virtually both HW driver and admin system.
For KVM, It is application + kernel part too grant access Real hardware/cpus (using processor assisted), but system running KVM is both HW driver and admin system.
In both cases, if parent or dom0 cracked, whole system is compromised.
I agree that if Xen code is too much impact on x86 core arch code it should not merge until this fixes, but again KVM is not Xen replacement at all. Even with xenner which is really KVM but Xen guest.
I can say that Xen lacks support from its users. If Xen shipped in kernel it would heavily tested. But now it's not, even Xen currently keep track latest kernel inside git, most people seems to use stable and old Xen kernel and not many are working on new Xen Dom0 kernel.
And again, KVM is not thing that would replace Xen and not replace each other. I cannot see any benefits for replace Xen with KVM for now (I running a couple servers using Xen, some of those not support VT-d or AMD-V).
Topics of this problem is that Xen cause too much changes of the core x86 code and seems not to clean enough.
Posted Jun 4, 2009 1:05 UTC (Thu)
by ras (subscriber, #33059)
[Link] (4 responses)
When I going out and try to buy CPU cycles, the most attractive way to do it right now is a Xen VM. There are other options - shared hosting, VMware and probably others. All have warts compared to a Xen VM. It is really nice to be able to configure and debug my VM on my laptop, then send it to the hosting provider. So that is point 1: unlike KVM or any other solution described here, Xen is out there, in the real world. Because KVM isn't, it is in a practical sense unless for one of the major applications of VM's - cloud computing.
Point 2 is that many of those Xen images out there are para-virtualised for speed, so I can't use KVM to develop them.
Point 3 is I want to run the latest Linux kernel as my Dom0 - principally because nothing else seems to work on modern hardware. Applying the Xen patches myself is an absolute PITA.
The end result is not having Xen is making Linux hard to use in an emerging platform - cloud computing. I don't doubt there are real issues - the fact that Xen uses the Dom0 to talk to the hardware sounds to me like it has the makings of a real ugly patch. However Xen isn't a webcam that can be ignored. Xen is an entire platform - like Windows or Linux. And it is an open source solution locked in battle with closed alternatives. I want it to win - after all I could just use VMware. If Xen doesn't win, possibly no open source solution will. KVM is not even a player in this space.
Posted Jun 4, 2009 1:23 UTC (Thu)
by ncm (guest, #165)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Jun 4, 2009 1:51 UTC (Thu)
by ras (subscriber, #33059)
[Link] (2 responses)
Firstly, beware I am trying to do this as we speak. I've tried things. Some of them didn't work. But maybe it is just because I don't have a clue.
There are two issues here. One is I don't seem to get a choice as to what DomU I am running. The VM hosting provide couple and I choose one. If I want to work on it locally, I image it and have a fiddle. The essential point being, I can't choose one that suits KVM. On the other hand, if there is some magic way I can make any image run fine under KVM, and back again 100% reliably then I am mostly satisfied. Right now I haven't found that way. As I said, this is possibly because I need a clue.
Secondly, I would like to use the same tools for managing the DomU the hosting provider does - it just makes it so much easier to understand what is going on. In other words, I want to run the xen tools in a Linux Dom0. This is very much a secondary consideration for me though. It is possibly more important from the Xen world domination point of view as you want to make it as easy as possible for the hosting providers, and right now they have to be very picky about what they use as their Dom0.
Currently I can use Linux 2.6.26 as my Dom0. Sadly a big chunk of my peripherals aren't supported by 2.6.26. In fact some aren't stable under 2.6.29 (wireless causes the machine to freeze if I use it heavily), so right now I am eagerly awaiting each new kernel release. But porting the Xen patches to each and every kernel release is simply too much work.
Posted Jun 4, 2009 6:34 UTC (Thu)
by jamesh (guest, #1159)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jun 4, 2009 6:49 UTC (Thu)
by ras (subscriber, #33059)
[Link]
Let's step back a bit
OK. But DomU is already in the kernel, and isn't that part already coded to not require hardware virtualization support?Let's step back a bit
Let's step back a bit
Let's step back a bit
qemu-kvm will transparently fall back to software
emulation if the hardware doesn't support virtualization.
Let's step back a bit
Let's step back a bit
Let's step back a bit
Let's step back a bit
I agree your situation sucks, but it seems more of a purchasing mistake than a reason to not move the world towards proper hardware virtualization.
Let's step back a bit
xenner is
a
utility which is able to run xen paravirtualized kernels as guests on linux
hosts, without the xen hypervisor, using kvm instead.
HVM No HVM
KVM Supports many guests Not possible
Xen Supports manu guests Supports paravirtualized guests
No, it's completely unrelated.
No, it's completely unrelated.
virtio-rng = random number generator
virtio-net = ethernet network driver
virtio-balloon = used for reclaiming memory from VMs
virtio-pci = pci driver
9pnet_virtio = plan9 networking
No, it's completely unrelated.
No, it's completely unrelated.
(this is not a huge advantage over Xen, its more of a big improvement when compared to Vmware ESX.. no restrictions to hardware, network block protocols, or sata or anything like that... if Linux supports it you can use it in KVM)
No, it's completely unrelated.
No, it's completely unrelated.
No, it's completely unrelated.
No, it's completely unrelated.
No, it's completely unrelated.
No, it's completely unrelated.
No, it's completely unrelated.
Let's step back a bit
Let's step back a bit
Let's step back a bit
Let's step back a bit
Let's step back a bit
Let's step back a bit
Let's step back a bit
When I bought my laptop, January 2008, I shopped explicitly for one with virtualization capability. However, for a long time I just was not able to use it as such - Because of the lack of support in Xen for core features I want a laptop to support, such as ACPI
This is a fatal flaw in Xen, sure, but I don't understand why it would have stopped you from using KVM. You mention that you specifically bought a laptop with support for hardware virtualization, and KVM works fine with ACPI or any other core laptop feature, since KVM is just Linux.
Let's step back a bit
Let's step back a bit
KVM, qemu still works, only slower (much slower if you don't load kqemu).
works, just slower.
Let's step back a bit
Let's step back a bit
Let's step back a bit
1 x hypervisor -- manages CPU, ram, interrupts
1 x dom0 -- contains device drivers and admin apps
n x domU -- guest VMs
1) critical hypervisor code is small, so more easily ported and audited
2) possible to use same hypervisor with different dom0 impls, eg windows/bsd/solaris as dom0.
3) this is the traditional approach, hence more research/experience
4) reduces changes needed to an OS to make it a dom0, as some of the virtualization-specific logic is in a separate layer. In particular, one article implied that KVM would have to rework the standard linux scheduler implementation to get good scheduling for guests. I guess this means that xen does at least some scheduling decisions in the hypervisor.
(a) XenSource would presumably have to maintain two similar-but-not-identical hypervisor implementations,
(b) If someone upgrades their linux kernel, they also need to upgrade the hypervisor to match.
(c) If someone switchs to a different dom0 (eg windows) they need to change hypervisor to match.
1) critical hypervisor code is small, so more easily ported and audited
Let's step back a bit
Let's step back a bit
Let's step back a bit
Let's step back a bit
Let's step back a bit
Let's step back a bit
Let's step back a bit
Let's step back a bit