DOCSLIB.ORG

Comparing Live Migration Between Linux Containers and Kernel Virtual Machine

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comparing Live Migration Between Linux Containers and Kernel Virtual Machine Master of Science in Computer Science February 2017 Comparing Live Migration between Linux Containers and Kernel Virtual Machine Investigation study in terms of parameters Kotikalapudi Sai Venkat Naresh Faculty of Computing Blekinge Institute of Technology SE-371 79 Karlskrona Sweden This thesis is submitted to the Faculty of Computing at Blekinge Institute of Technology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Computer Science. The thesis is equivalent to 20 weeks of full time studies. Contact Information: Author(s): Sai Venkat Naresh Kotikalapudi E-mail: [email protected] University advisor: Sogand Shirinbab Department of Computer Science Faculty of Computing Internet : www.bth.se Blekinge Institute of Technology Phone : +46 455 38 50 00 SE-371 79 Karlskrona, Sweden Fax : +46 455 38 50 57 i i ABSTRACT Context. Virtualization technologies have been extensively used in various cloud platforms. Hardware replacements and maintenance are occasionally required, which leads to business downtime. Live migration is performed to ensure high availability of services, as it is a major aspect. The performance of live migration in virtualization technologies directly impacts the performance of cloud platforms. Hence comparison is performed in two mainstream virtualization technologies, container and hypervisor based virtualization. Objectives. In the present study, the objective is to perform live migration of hypervisor and container based virtualization technologies, Kernel Virtual Machine (KVM) and Linux Containers (LXC) respectively. Measure and compare the downtime, total migration time, CPU utilization and disk utilization of KVM and LXC during live migration. Methods. An initial literature is conducted to get in-depth knowledge about live migration in virtualization technologies. An experiment is conducted to perform live migration in KVM and LXC. The live migration process is performed when 100 % and 66% workloads are being generated to Cassandra present in virtual machine and container. The performance of live migration in KVM and LXC is measured in terms of CPU utilization, disk utilization, total migration time and downtime. Results. Based on the obtained results from the experiment, graphs are plotted for the performance of KVM and LXC during live migration. The results indicated that KVM has better CPU utilization when compared to LXC. However, downtime, total migration time and disk utilization of LXC are relatively better than KVM. From the obtained results, mean and standard deviation are calculated. Box plotting for downtime and total migration time is performed to illustrate difference between KVM and LXC. The measurable difference between KVM and LXC is calculated using Cohen’s d effect size for downtime, total migration time, CPU and disk utilization. Conclusions. The present study concludes that no single hypervisor has better performance when considering all performance metrics. While LXC has better performance when considering downtime, total migration time and disk utilization. However, KVM performs better when CPU usage is considered. Keywords: Virtualization, Live migration, hypervisor, container, KVM, LXC, i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to sincerely thank my supervisor, Sogand Shirinbab for encouraging and guiding me in performing the thesis. My sincere thanks to the examiner Martin Boldt, for enlightening about guidelines to perform thesis. I would like to extend my gratitude to Bengt Olsson, System administrator of IT helpdesk for helping me out with server issues encountered during my thesis time. I would like to thank Prudhvi, Chaitanya, Apuroop, Avinash, Kashyap, Pavan, Sowrabh, Shiva , Srinivas and Akhil for the valuable memories from past 5 years. I would like to Pavan and Haritha for the incredible help and encouragement throughout my thesis time.I would like to also thank Srihas, Mohit, Raywon, Sharath Abbireddy and Rajeev for helping me study technically. ii CONTENTS ABSTRACT ...........................................................................................................................................I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................ II LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................. V LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................................. VI LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................... VII 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 8 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION ..................................................................................................... 8 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................................... 9 RESEARCH QUESTIONS .......................................................................................................... 9 THESIS OUTLINE .................................................................................................................. 10 2 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................ 11 VIRTUALIZATION ................................................................................................................. 11 2.1.1 Server virtualization ....................................................................................................... 11 2.1.2 Hypervisor ...................................................................................................................... 11 2.1.3 Container based Virtualization ....................................................................................... 12 MIGRATION .......................................................................................................................... 12 KVM ................................................................................................................................... 13 LINUX CONTAINERS ............................................................................................................. 14 2.4.1 LXD ................................................................................................................................. 15 2.4.2 Checkpoint /Restore in User Space (CRIU) .................................................................... 15 CASSANDRA ......................................................................................................................... 16 3 RELATED WORK .................................................................................................................... 17 4 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 18 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 18 4.1.1 Selected Research Method .............................................................................................. 18 EXPERIMENT ........................................................................................................................ 18 4.2.2 Experiment setup ............................................................................................................ 19 4.2.3 Experiment Design .......................................................................................................... 20 4.2.4 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................. 22 5 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................... 24 LIVE MIGRATION IN KVM ................................................................................................... 24 5.1.1 Scenario 1 ....................................................................................................................... 24 5.1.2 Scenario 2 ....................................................................................................................... 25 LIVE MIGRATION IN LXC .................................................................................................... 26 5.2.1 Scenario 1 ....................................................................................................................... 26 5.2.2 Scenario 2 ....................................................................................................................... 27 6 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION .............................................................................................. 29 ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................ 29 6.1.1 CPU Utilization .............................................................................................................. 29 6.1.2 Disk Utilization ............................................................................................................... 29 6.1.3 Downtime ........................................................................................................................ 30 6.1.4 Total Migration time ......................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Security Assurance Requirements for Linux Application Container Deployments
    NISTIR 8176 Security Assurance Requirements for Linux Application Container Deployments Ramaswamy Chandramouli This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8176 NISTIR 8176 Security Assurance Requirements for Linux Application Container Deployments Ramaswamy Chandramouli Computer Security Division Information Technology Laboratory This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8176 October 2017 U.S. Department of Commerce Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Secretary National Institute of Standards and Technology Walter Copan, NIST Director and Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology NISTIR 8176 SECURITY ASSURANCE FOR LINUX CONTAINERS National Institute of Standards and Technology Internal Report 8176 37 pages (October 2017) This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8176 Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this document in order to describe an experimental procedure or concept adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by NIST, nor is it intended to imply that the entities, materials, or equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose. This p There may be references in this publication to other publications currently under development by NIST in accordance with its assigned statutory responsibilities. The information in this publication, including concepts and methodologies, may be used by federal agencies even before the completion of such companion publications. Thus, until each ublication is available free of charge from: http publication is completed, current requirements, guidelines, and procedures, where they exist, remain operative. For planning and transition purposes, federal agencies may wish to closely follow the development of these new publications by NIST.
    [Show full text]
  • Hypervisors Vs. Lightweight Virtualization: a Performance Comparison
    2015 IEEE International Conference on Cloud Engineering Hypervisors vs. Lightweight Virtualization: a Performance Comparison Roberto Morabito, Jimmy Kjällman, and Miika Komu Ericsson Research, NomadicLab Jorvas, Finland [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract — Virtualization of operating systems provides a container and alternative solutions. The idea is to quantify the common way to run different services in the cloud. Recently, the level of overhead introduced by these platforms and the lightweight virtualization technologies claim to offer superior existing gap compared to a non-virtualized environment. performance. In this paper, we present a detailed performance The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: in comparison of traditional hypervisor based virtualization and Section II, literature review and a brief description of all the new lightweight solutions. In our measurements, we use several technologies and platforms evaluated is provided. The benchmarks tools in order to understand the strengths, methodology used to realize our performance comparison is weaknesses, and anomalies introduced by these different platforms in terms of processing, storage, memory and network. introduced in Section III. The benchmark results are presented Our results show that containers achieve generally better in Section IV. Finally, some concluding remarks and future performance when compared with traditional virtual machines work are provided in Section V. and other recent solutions. Albeit containers offer clearly more dense deployment of virtual machines, the performance II. BACKGROUND AND RELATED WORK difference with other technologies is in many cases relatively small. In this section, we provide an overview of the different technologies included in the performance comparison.
    [Show full text]
  • Systemd As a Container Manager
    systemd as a Container Manager Seth Jennings [email protected] Texas Linux Fest 2015 8/21/2015 Agenda ● Very quick overview of systemd ● What is a Linux Container ● systemd as a Container Manager ● Live Demo! Because I like to punish myself! Disclaimer What is systemd? ● systemd is a suite of system management daemons, libraries, and utilities designed as a central management and configuration platform for the Linux operating system. How Big Is This “Suite” ● systemd - init process, pid 1 ● journald ● logind ● udevd ● hostnamed ● machined ● importd ● networkd ● resolved ● localed ● timedated ● timesyncd ● and more! Don't Leave! ● No deep dive on all of these ● Focus on using systemd for container management – Spoiler alert: many of the systemd commands you already use work on containers managed by systemd too! What is a Linux Container ● What it is not – Magic ● conjured only from the mystical language of Go – Virtualization (hardware emulation) – A completely new concept never before conceived of by man since time began – An image format – An image distribution mechanism – Only usable by modular (microservice) applications at scale What is a Linux Container ● A resource-constrained, namespaced environment, initialized by a container manager and enforced by the kernel, where processes can run – kernel cgroups limits hardware resources ● cpus, memory, i/o ● special cgroup filesystem /sys/fs/cgroup – kernel namespacing limits resource visibility ● mount, PID, user, network, UTS, IPC ● syscalls clone(), setns(), unshare() What is a Linux Container ● The set of processes in the container is rooted in a process that has pid 1 inside the pid namespace of the container ● The filesystem inside the container can be as complex as a docker image or as simple as a subdirectory on the host (think chroot).
    [Show full text]
  • Resource Management: Linux Kernel Namespaces and Cgroups
    Resource management: Linux kernel Namespaces and cgroups Rami Rosen [email protected] Haifux, May 2013 www.haifux.org 1/121 http://ramirose.wix.com/ramirosen TOC Network Namespace PID namespaces UTS namespace Mount namespace user namespaces cgroups Mounting cgroups links Note: All code examples are from for_3_10 branch of cgroup git tree (3.9.0-rc1, April 2013) 2/121 http://ramirose.wix.com/ramirosen General The presentation deals with two Linux process resource management solutions: namespaces and cgroups. We will look at: ● Kernel Implementation details. ●what was added/changed in brief. ● User space interface. ● Some working examples. ● Usage of namespaces and cgroups in other projects. ● Is process virtualization indeed lightweight comparing to Os virtualization ? ●Comparing to VMWare/qemu/scaleMP or even to Xen/KVM. 3/121 http://ramirose.wix.com/ramirosen Namespaces ● Namespaces - lightweight process virtualization. – Isolation: Enable a process (or several processes) to have different views of the system than other processes. – 1992: “The Use of Name Spaces in Plan 9” – http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/names.html ● Rob Pike et al, ACM SIGOPS European Workshop 1992. – Much like Zones in Solaris. – No hypervisor layer (as in OS virtualization like KVM, Xen) – Only one system call was added (setns()) – Used in Checkpoint/Restart ● Developers: Eric W. biederman, Pavel Emelyanov, Al Viro, Cyrill Gorcunov, more. – 4/121 http://ramirose.wix.com/ramirosen Namespaces - contd There are currently 6 namespaces: ● mnt (mount points, filesystems) ● pid (processes) ● net (network stack) ● ipc (System V IPC) ● uts (hostname) ● user (UIDs) 5/121 http://ramirose.wix.com/ramirosen Namespaces - contd It was intended that there will be 10 namespaces: the following 4 namespaces are not implemented (yet): ● security namespace ● security keys namespace ● device namespace ● time namespace.
    [Show full text]
  • Container-Based Virtualization for Byte-Addressable NVM Data Storage
    2016 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data) Container-Based Virtualization for Byte-Addressable NVM Data Storage Ellis R. Giles Rice University Houston, Texas [email protected] Abstract—Container based virtualization is rapidly growing Storage Class Memory, or SCM, is an exciting new in popularity for cloud deployments and applications as a memory technology with the potential of replacing hard virtualization alternative due to the ease of deployment cou- drives and SSDs as it offers high-speed, byte-addressable pled with high-performance. Emerging byte-addressable, non- volatile memories, commonly called Storage Class Memory or persistence on the main memory bus. Several technologies SCM, technologies are promising both byte-addressability and are currently under research and development, each with dif- persistence near DRAM speeds operating on the main memory ferent performance, durability, and capacity characteristics. bus. These new memory alternatives open up a new realm of These include a ReRAM by Micron and Sony, a slower, but applications that no longer have to rely on slow, block-based very large capacity Phase Change Memory or PCM by Mi- persistence, but can rather operate directly on persistent data using ordinary loads and stores through the cache hierarchy cron and others, and a fast, smaller spin-torque ST-MRAM coupled with transaction techniques. by Everspin. High-speed, byte-addressable persistence will However, SCM presents a new challenge for container-based give rise to new applications that no longer have to rely on applications, which typically access persistent data through slow, block based storage devices and to serialize data for layers of block based file isolation.
    [Show full text]
  • Ubuntu Server Guide Basic Installation Preparing to Install
    Ubuntu Server Guide Welcome to the Ubuntu Server Guide! This site includes information on using Ubuntu Server for the latest LTS release, Ubuntu 20.04 LTS (Focal Fossa). For an offline version as well as versions for previous releases see below. Improving the Documentation If you find any errors or have suggestions for improvements to pages, please use the link at thebottomof each topic titled: “Help improve this document in the forum.” This link will take you to the Server Discourse forum for the specific page you are viewing. There you can share your comments or let us know aboutbugs with any page. PDFs and Previous Releases Below are links to the previous Ubuntu Server release server guides as well as an offline copy of the current version of this site: Ubuntu 20.04 LTS (Focal Fossa): PDF Ubuntu 18.04 LTS (Bionic Beaver): Web and PDF Ubuntu 16.04 LTS (Xenial Xerus): Web and PDF Support There are a couple of different ways that the Ubuntu Server edition is supported: commercial support and community support. The main commercial support (and development funding) is available from Canonical, Ltd. They supply reasonably- priced support contracts on a per desktop or per-server basis. For more information see the Ubuntu Advantage page. Community support is also provided by dedicated individuals and companies that wish to make Ubuntu the best distribution possible. Support is provided through multiple mailing lists, IRC channels, forums, blogs, wikis, etc. The large amount of information available can be overwhelming, but a good search engine query can usually provide an answer to your questions.
    [Show full text]
  • Unprivileged GPU Containers on a LXD Cluster
    Unprivileged GPU containers on a LXD cluster GPU-enabled system containers at scale Stéphane Graber Christian Brauner LXD project leader LXD maintainer @stgraber @brau_ner https://stgraber.org https://brauner.io [email protected] [email protected] What are system containers? They are the oldest type of containers 01 BSD jails, Linux vServer, Solaris Zones, OpenVZ, LXC and LXD. They behave like standalone systems 02 No need for specialized software or custom images. No virtualization overhead 03 They are containers after all. LXD System nova-lxd command line tool your own client/script ? container LXD REST API manager LXD LXD LXD LXD LXC LXC LXC LXC Linux kernel Linux kernel Linux kernel Linux kernel Host A Host B Host C Host ... What LXD is Simple 01 Clean command line interface, simple REST API and clear terminology. Fast 02 Image based, no virtualization, direct hardware access. Secure 03 Safe by default. Combines all available kernel security features. Scalable 04 From a single container on a laptop to tens of thousands of containers in a cluster. What LXD isn’t Another virtualization technology 01 LXD offers an experience very similar to a virtual machine. But it’s still containers, with no virtualization overhead and real hardware. A fork of LXC 02 LXD uses LXC’s API to manage the containers behind the scene. Another application container manager 03 LXD only cares about full system containers. You can run whatever you want inside a LXD container, including Docker. LXD Main Certificates components Cluster Containers Snapshots Backups Events Images Aliases Networks Operations Projects Storage pools Storage volumes Snapshots LXD clustering Built-in clustering support 01 No external dependencies, all LXD 3.0 or higher installations can be instantly turned into a cluster.
    [Show full text]
  • Separating Protection and Management in Cloud Infrastructures
    SEPARATING PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT IN CLOUD INFRASTRUCTURES A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Zhiming Shen December 2017 c 2017 Zhiming Shen ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SEPARATING PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT IN CLOUD INFRASTRUCTURES Zhiming Shen, Ph.D. Cornell University 2017 Cloud computing infrastructures serving mutually untrusted users provide se- curity isolation to protect user computation and resources. Additionally, clouds should also support flexibility and efficiency, so that users can customize re- source management policies and optimize performance and resource utiliza- tion. However, flexibility and efficiency are typically limited due to security requirements. This dissertation investigates the question of how to offer flexi- bility and efficiency as well as strong security in cloud infrastructures. Specifically, this dissertation addresses two important platforms in cloud in- frastructures: the containers and the Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) platforms. The containers platform supports efficient container provisioning and execut- ing, but does not provide sufficient security and flexibility. Different containers share an operating system kernel which has a large attack surface, and kernel customization is generally not allowed. The IaaS platform supports secure shar- ing of cloud resources among mutually untrusted users, but does not provide sufficient flexibility and efficiency. Many powerful management primitives en- abled by the underlying virtualization platform are hidden from users, such as live virtual machine migration and consolidation. The main contribution of this dissertation is the proposal of an approach in- spired by the exokernel architecture that can be generalized to any multi-tenant system to improve security, flexibility, and efficiency.
    [Show full text]
  • Openvz Forum Each Container
    Subject: I am thinking of moving to LXD Posted by votsalo on Wed, 17 Aug 2016 19:13:50 GMT View Forum Message <> Reply to Message I am thinking of moving my dedicated server to LXD (a variant of LXC). One reason is that I can run LXD on several different environments where I can run Ubuntu: * On a dedicated server. * On an Amazon EC2 instance. * On my home machine, running Ubuntu desktop. * On a cheap Ubuntu 16.04 Openstack KVM VPS. I find the VPS option very usuful, however tricky because of the tight disk space. I can have a few containers on my VPS. I can move containers between the VPS and another LXD server. I can run a container OS that I need on my VPS that is not offered as a choice by my VPS provider, but is available as an LXD template. And perhaps I can replace the dedicated server with a few cheaper VPSs. I have tried doing all these with OpenVZ in the past. I couldn't get it to run anywhere, except on the dedicated server or on a dedicated home machine (or dual boot). Now it seems that I cannot run OpenVZ 7.0.0 on any of the above infrastructure. I have installed OpenVZ 7.0.0 on my home machine, as a dual boot, but I'm not using it, since I use my desktop OS and I cannot use both at the same time. In the past I tried installing OpenVZ on several desktop distributions, but I couldn't find one that worked.
    [Show full text]
  • Container Technologies
    Zagreb, NKOSL, FER Container technologies Marko Golec · Juraj Vijtiuk · Jakov Petrina April 11, 2020 About us ◦ Embedded Linux development and integration ◦ Delivering solutions based on Linux, OpenWrt and Yocto • Focused on software in network edge and CPEs ◦ Continuous participation in Open Source projects ◦ www.sartura.hr Introduction to GNU/Linux ◦ Linux = operating system kernel ◦ GNU/Linux distribution = kernel + userspace (Ubuntu, Arch Linux, Gentoo, Debian, OpenWrt, Mint, …) ◦ Userspace = set of libraries + system software Linux kernel ◦ Operating systems have two spaces of operation: • Kernel space – protected memory space and full access to the device’s hardware • Userspace – space in which all other application run • Has limited access to hardware resources • Accesses hardware resources via kernel • Userspace applications invoke kernel services with system calls User applications E.g. bash, LibreOffice, GIMP, Blender, Mozilla Firefox, etc. System daemons: Windowing system: User mode Low-level system systemd, runit, logind, X11, Wayland, Other libraries: GTK+, Qt, EFL, SDL, SFML, Graphics: Mesa, AMD components networkd, PulseAudio, SurfaceFlinger FLTK, GNUstep, etc. Catalyst, … … (Android) C standard library Up to 2000 subroutines depending on C library (glibc, musl, uClibc, bionic) ( open() , exec() , sbrk() , socket() , fopen() , calloc() , …) About 380 system calls ( stat , splice , dup , read , open , ioctl , write , mmap , close , exit , etc.) Process scheduling Memory management IPC subsystem Virtual files subsystem Network subsystem Kernel mode Linux Kernel subsystem subsystem Other components: ALSA, DRI, evdev, LVM, device mapper, Linux Network Scheduler, Netfilter Linux Security Modules: SELinux, TOMOYO, AppArmor, Smack Hardware (CPU, main memory, data storage devices, etc.) TABLE 1 Layers within Linux Virtualization Virtualization Concepts Two virtualization concepts: ◦ Hardware virtualization (full/para virtualization) • Emulation of complete hardware (virtual machines - VMs) • VirtualBox, QEMU, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • A Performance Study of VM Live Migration Over the WAN
    Master Thesis Electrical Engineering April 2015 A Performance Study of VM Live Migration over the WAN TAHA MOHAMMAD CHANDRA SEKHAR EATI Department of Communication Systems Blekinge Institute of Technology SE-371 79 Karlskrona Sweden This thesis is submitted to the School of Computing at Blekinge Institute of Technology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Electrical Engineering on Telecommunication Systems. The thesis is equivalent to 40 weeks of full time studies. Contact Information: Author(s): Taha Mohammad, Chandra Sekhar Eati. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]. University advisor(s): Dr. Dragos Ilie, Department of Communication Systems. University Examiner(s): Prof. Kurt Tutschku, Department of Communication Systems. School of Computing Blekinge Institute of Technology Internet : www.bth.se SE-371 79 Karlskrona Phone : +46 455 38 50 00 Sweden Fax : +46 455 38 50 57 Abstract Virtualization is the key technology that has provided the Cloud computing platforms a new way for small and large enterprises to host their applications by renting the available resources. Live VM migration allows a Virtual Machine to be transferred form one host to another while the Virtual Machine is active and running. The main challenge in Live migration over WAN is maintaining the network connectivity during and after the migration. We have carried out live VM migration over the WAN migrating different sizes of VM memory states and presented our solutions based on Open vSwitch/VXLAN and Cisco GRE approaches. VXLAN provides the mobility support needed to maintain the network connectivity between the client and the Virtual machine.
    [Show full text]
  • Ovirt Architecture
    oVirt Architecture Itamar Heim Director, RHEV-M Engineering, Red Hat oVirt Engine Architecture 1 oVirt Engine Large scale, centralized management for server and desktop virtualization Based on leading performance, scalability and security infrastructure technologies oVirt Engine Architecture 2 Kenrel-based Virtual Machine (KVM) ● Included in Linux kernel since 2006 ● Runs Linux, Windows and other operating system guests ● Advanced features ● Live migration ● Memory page sharing ● Thin provisioning ● PCI Pass-through ● KVM architecture provides high “feature-velocity” – leverages the power of Linux oVirt Engine Architecture 3 Linux as a Hypervisor? ● What makes up a hypervisor ? ● Hardware management ● Device drivers ● I/O Stack ● Resource Management ● Scheduling ● Access Control ● Power Management ● Memory Manager ● Device Model (emulation) ● Virtual Machine Monitor oVirt Engine Architecture 4 Linux as a Hypervisor? ● What makes up a hypervisor ? ● Hardware management ● Device drivers ● I/O Stack ● Resource Management Operating System Kernel ● Scheduling ● Access Control ● Power Management ● } Memory Manager ● Device Model (emulation) ● Virtual Machine Monitor oVirt Engine Architecture 5 Linux as a Hypervisor? How well does Linux perform as a hypervisor? Isn't Linux a general purpose operating system? Linux is architected to scale from the smallest embedded systems through to the largest multi-socket servers ● From cell phones through to mainframes KVM benefits from mature, time tested infrastructure ● Powerful, scalable memory manager
    [Show full text]