From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <13426df10704060929m22cec0b0x81aa5b8fac68a44e@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 09:29:07 -0700 From: "ron minnich" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] qemu, kvm, xen In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <13426df10704060736h13f60a16y658fd770561444e0@mail.gmail.com> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 40845592-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On 4/6/07, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote: > kvm will catch up as soon as better paravirtualization interfaces are > integrated (particularly for I/O) -- this is why I wanted to push 9p > as the KVM paravirtualized I/O interface -- its clear they need to > close that gap. I think this is correct. We will keep the THX name however when we move to kvm, since it's much nicer. This is a window in time, folks. Anyone who has time to work on paravirt I/O for kvm that uses 9p could probably get somewhere with the kvm guys, and avoid the problems of the xen I/O device interface. I think, overall, given its much simpler setup, kvm is going to win in the long term. It's in the kernel, it's a piece of cake to set up and use, you don't need python, xml-rpc, and tons of config files. There are almost fewer lines of code in kvm than there are files in xen. OK, so I'm exaggerating, but not by much. One thing I'm finding is that linux is a very tolerable device driver layer for Plan 9. This T60, with Plan 9 as a guest OS, is a far better Plan 9 platform than a T23 with Plan 9 native. thanks ron