#1520 Investigate KVM vs Xen for standard infrastructure requirements
Closed: Fixed None Opened 14 years ago by nigelj.

I've been discussing this with Mike, posting it here for documentation.

Basically the idea is to install the public RHEL5u4 beta (https://www.redhat.com/archives/rhelv5-announce/2009-July/msg00000.html) onto xen6 (one of our unused machines, typically/lately used for testing) as a means for us to test how well KVM fits into our Infrastructure, our fall-back plan will be xen as it will continually be in RHEL5. (We can always relook at KVM when the time for RHEL6 comes).

Once we have built xen6 we can put some VMs on it, including some production load, for this we could create an 'app7' VM with our standard build, at least here, the theory is, that the balancers/haproxy will not forward these requests if the machine is not available for any reason.


Moving to smooge from nigelj

To recap where things stand:

RHEL-5 KVM was not very speedy in comparison to Xen. We are waiting for xen13 to be repaired so that we can change it out to be a RHEL-6 box to test it with.

We will (have to) use KVM as we upgrade servers to EL-6. I think we will look at a new naming scheme to be decided for these boxes. It WILL NOT be KVMXX as that conflicts with keyboard video mouse boxes. I recommend

VMW - virtual machine worker

or

MTR - many time rebooter :)

i would suggest something like vhXX (virtual host)

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata