KVM, OpenVZ, LXC, what hypervisor do you prefer?

zhuyijun

@LosPollosHermanos said:

@ezeth said:
Openvz. I would pay more for it. It uses less resources and you can upgrade/downgrade disk, cpu, memory without rebooting! It's very useful for scaling projects where uptime is critical

Less resources is the one and only advantage. Not worth the extra hassle of learning all the proprietary things about it. With KVM being the defacto standard there is a lot more info how to do everything. With cheap SSD drives the resources issue isn't that big a deal anymore.

@ezeth why didnot you said in this thead anymore?

sundaymouse

In my opinion hosts running OpenVZ, LXC, or other container platforms should be banned from referring to the product as a Virtual Private Server here. You are just running a bunch of aliased processes on a shared kernel coupled with auto IO killers because it's impossible to keep any meaningful resource isolation otherwise.

sundaymouse

Yeah, it's cheap cause it can be oversold to oblivion; but even the low end market should be fairly marketed

yoursunny

@yokowasis said:
VirtualBox

VirtualBox is where I started.
It's easy to use, but not as efficient as KVM.
Nowadays, I use LXC where kernel version doesn't matter, and use KVM where I need different kernels.

Today, the only benefit of choosing VirtualBox over KVM is that Vagrant Boxes has more templates for VirtualBox than for KVM (libvirt).
Nevertheless, since I picked KVM for my dedicated server, I have to stick to it because KVM and VirtualBox cannot coexist on the same server.

---

@sundaymouse said:
In my opinion hosts running OpenVZ, LXC, or other container platforms should be banned from referring to the product as a Virtual Private Server here. You are just running a bunch of aliased processes on a shared kernel coupled with auto IO killers because it's impossible to keep any meaningful resource isolation otherwise.

Providers can setup cgroup to restrict resource usage of each container.
It's available for both OpenVZ and LXC.

Without cgroup, every container can use all available resources.
I run LXC on my own dedicated server, so I don't bother with cgroup, since I'm only compiling software in one LXC container at a time, but it's convenient to keep all other containers idling.

AsiaVM

we tried LXC and OpenVZ in production using virtualizor and found that LXC is unstable compred to OpenVZ. in the end, we choose KVM

YKM

KVM unless you want hassle

dedipromo

OpenVZ and LXC gets the most out of host server, so they do have better performance than KVM if not oversold. So for me, I do prefer OpenVZ when I need to build a virtualization environment on my own server, but when I have to purchase a VPS from a provider I'd go for KVM.

key900

KVM all the Way

ericls

qemu

Techout

In conclusion, most people chose KVM since it's one if not the best Hypervisors/Architecture available currently. Thanks for the feedback everyone!