From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Boris Ostrovsky Subject: Re: Clarifying PVH mode requirements Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 14:58:47 -0500 Message-ID: <56AFB8F7.1040709@oracle.com> References: <56AE7C3B.7010100@gmail.com> <56AF3336.7040906@citrix.com> <56AF679E.4040104@oracle.com> <56AF7E7A.1040305@gmail.com> <56AFAEA7.9060003@oracle.com> <56AFB1B8.5050202@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <56AFB1B8.5050202@gmail.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: PGNet Dev , xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 02/01/2016 02:27 PM, PGNet Dev wrote: > On 02/01/2016 11:14 AM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >>> Is 'HVMLite' replacing 'PVH'? Or are they separate modes? >> >> Yes, HVMlite is replacing PVH. Probably once we get dom0 support. > > If that's a 'done deal', and it sounds like it is, it'd be useful to > have it integrated into: > > http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Understanding_the_Virtualization_Spectrum > > particularly as there's no mention of HVMlite on the wiki, at all. HVMlite is very new: domU hypervisor support has been added less than two months ago and Linux patches are being reviewed as we speak (FreeBSD, I believe, is supported). > > It's unclear whether PVH, in its current dev state (at least here), is > worth-the-visit -- especially if HVMlite is "ComingSoon(tm)". > > I suppose I'm looking for some guidance as to which to invest time in > while on Xen 4.6.0, ack'ing that neither PVH nor HVMlite are > production-ready. Current PVH implementation has never been described as production-ready. What is happening now with HVMlite is essentially bringing PVH to production-quality level. -boris