From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: HYBRID: PV in HVM container Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 12:27:09 -0700 Message-ID: <4E4C160D.2000206@goop.org> References: <20110627122404.23d2d0ce@mantra.us.oracle.com> <20110630185431.3ea308c6@mantra.us.oracle.com> <20110708185301.4b040a21@mantra.us.oracle.com> <20110727185828.55099372@mantra.us.oracle.com> <1312880045.26263.28.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1312880045.26263.28.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Ian Campbell Cc: "Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Keir Fraser , Stefano Stabellini List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 08/09/2011 01:54 AM, Ian Campbell wrote: > Also there are arguments to be made for HYBRID over PVHVM in terms of > ease of manageability (i.e. a lot of folks like the dom0-supplied kernel > idiom which PV enables), avoiding the need for a virtualised BIOS and > emulated boot paths, HYBRID can potentially give a best of both in the > trade off between standard-PV vs. HVM/PVHVM while also not needing a > QEMU process for each guest (which helps scalability and so on) etc. I > think HYBRID is worthwhile even if it is basically on-par with PVHVM for > some workloads. And it's amazing how much stuff goes away when you can set CONFIG_PCI=n... J