- New attack fells Internet Explorer
- Steve Jobs is a man of a few words
- Oddball gifts for uber geeks
- Global warming research exposed after hack
- Google adding IPv6 to YouTube
Introduction | Xen-based hypervisors push performance limits
Test methodology | Other virtualization management tests | Test archive
VMware and Microsoft should be taking the competition in the server virtualization market very seriously because open source Xen-based products have definitely matured into viable enterprise-class hypervisor options.
That's what we found in our unique, two-tiered test, in which we pitted three Xen-based virtualization platforms — Citrix Systems', Novell's and Virtual Iron Software's — against each other and against the results of our test of VMware's ESX and Microsoft's Hyper-V.
The winner in our all-Xen test was Citrix's XenServer, which combined solid performance and a strong overall package for those who want to virtualize Windows and Linux systems.
XenServer offered up the highest speeds in our business-transaction tests, even though it did not have a great showing in our I/O performance testing. (See the complete results of our Xen-based hypervisor performance test.) XenServer's management components were flexible and easy to use, despite being a bit buggy. And it's long list of supported guest operating systems adds to its overall enterprise appeal.
Neither Novell's SUSE Xen or Virtual Iron should be ignored, however. We found both have plausible audiences. Novell's Xen is ships as part and parcel of the company's SUSE Linux Enterprise Server (SLES) 10.2 package and Novell's overall support system is highly evolved and very responsive.
Virtual Iron's unique approach — comprising a convenient, server-farm-like approach to virtual machine (VM) guest management — provides an out-of-network administrative link that's potentially more secure than other implementations.
In looking at the hypervisor landscape we've tested so far, VMware's ESX and VirtualCenter combination still is the product to beat because of its wide compatibility list, decent performance and rich management components.
The open source Xen hypervisor originally supported only Linux machines. Today Xen can represent host hardware to almost any guest that has drivers to support the underlying hardware.
SUSE first bundled Xen in SLES 9.1, that was before Novell acquired SUSE in 2004. Citrix picked up its Xen capabilities when it acquired XenSource in 2007. (Listen to a podcast with Citrix virtualization CTO Simon Crosby.) Both Novell and Citrix still contribute to the Xen project and base their current products on Xen 3.2 code.
The master/slave relationship Virtual Iron establishes between its hypervisor and its guests is a different metaphor for VM hosting. It uses one or more controller servers to manage other servers running hypervisors over a private network.
To assess how these three packages measure up against the non-Xen hypervisors, we asked vendors to submit a base hypervisor package and either built-in or add-on management package roughly equal to the offerings we tested from VMware and Microsoft. Citrix and Virtual Iron complied with the request in full, but Novell would not submit its Orchestrator management application — which has a plug-in module called ZenWorks Virtual Machine Management — for review. With Novell's insistance, we tested SLES 10.2 with is virtualization building blocks but without the add-on management application.
Partner Content
www.bmc.com
Gartner 2009 Magic Quadrant for Job Scheduling
Gartner has positioned BMC CONTROL-M in the Leaders Quadrant of their "2009 Magic Quadrant for Job Scheduling." The report assesses the ability to execute and completeness of vision of key vendors in the marketplace. Read a full copy today, courtesy of BMC Software.
Download whitepaper
Dell's SMART Approach to Workload Automation
Read a compelling case study by EMA, Inc. to learn how Dell uses BMC CONTROL-M to cut cost and increase productivity with workload automation.
Download whitepaper
Workload Automation Cost Savings 2 Minute Video
A major computer manufacturer uses BMC CONTROL-M and just four people to schedule and run over 85,000 jobs every month. By switching to BMC CONTROL-M, they more than quadrupled the workload without adding a single staff member. See how in this 2-minute video overview.
Go to video
Comments (5)
Where's xVM?By Kirbini on January 15, 2009, 12:40 pmHow is this a valid Xen comparison without Sun's xVM? In my experience it is heads and shoulders above Citrix. Last I heard they were a somewhat larger company...
Reply | Read entire comment
Sun wasn't ready when we tested....By Tom Henderson on January 15, 2009, 1:04 pmxVM seems to be nice, but Sun didn't want us to test xVM-- likely because they didn't have 64-bit support at the time when we tested. They released it less than...
Reply | Read entire comment
you are wrongBy Anonymous on January 20, 2009, 12:48 pmI've been on ESX for years and I'm in the process of migrating to Suse XEN. ESX is not a full OS. Try installing rsync or apcupsd and you'll see what I mean. ...
Reply | Read entire comment
There's XEN too...By matthorany on January 22, 2009, 11:39 amYea... when VMWare put out a comparison chart vs. XEN they used an open-source code to compare against. Companies like Novell implement XEN differently which in...
Reply | Read entire comment
ESX is not a full OS. TryBy club penguin on June 8, 2009, 3:26 amESX is not a full OS. Try installing rsync or apcupsd and you'll see what I mean. Suse has a gui so us non Linux experts can work with it, and it comes with rsync...
Reply | Read entire comment
View all comments