Xen & VMware: Different Approaches

In a previous post on virtualization, Direct2Dell reader John Oliver asked for a comparison between Xen and VMware. In this post, I’ll cover some of the differences in architecture behind these two virtualization products and how the technology is shaping up for the future. VMware ESX Server’s architecture is based on direct execution (run user-level virtual machine code natively on the hardware) and binary translation (dynamically translate any privileged code). Since essentially a full x86 platform is exported to a virtual machine, ESX Server enables almost any OS that can execute on x86 to run inside a Virtual Machine (VM) without modification. Xen’s architecture uses a paravirtualization technique that modifies the guest OS so that it knows it’s running in a virtualized environment. With hardware-assisted CPU virtualization technologies like Intel VT and AMD-V, Xen 3.x also supports unmodified or fully virtualized guest OSs. VMware has also made announcements regarding paravirtualization support in its products.

So what is the difference between these two approaches? The biggest difference is how they handle device I/O. How virtual machine I/O is routed to/from each physical I/O device has a lot of implications on performance, portability, sustainability and stability of a virtualized platform architecture. Xen follows a split driver model where the actual drivers reside in a service VM and special drivers inside other VMs communicate back to the service VM. This approach offers good performance but limits support for closed-source and legacy operating systems. In ESX, virtual device drivers in VMs communicate with the physical device drivers in the ESX kernel. ESX virtual machines can use off-the-shelf drivers for their virtual devices. This also provides high performance but also provides broader OS support. In this model, however, new device drivers must be ported into the ESX kernel (which I discussed in a previous post). To help address the trade-offs and complexities of I/O virtualization, Dell is working with partners like Intel, AMD and our peripheral hardware vendors to introduce virtualization support in chipset and I/O devices.

Another important component of an enterprise virtualization solution is its management. Products like Dell OpenManage coupled with VMware Virtual Center, P2V and VM Importer provide a comprehensive set of tools to efficiently deploy, monitor, automate operations and manage a virtualized IT data center. Both Novell and Red Hat are integrating management of Xen platforms into their operating systems through respective installation & configuration tools like YaST, Anaconda and management utilities like Virtual Machine Manager. As Winston Bumpus mentioned in a previous post, Dell is actively involved with various standards bodies. In this case, we are working with Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF) SVPC Workgroup to drive standardization of management interfaces for virtualized platforms.

Today, both ESX and Xen have their own benefits and tradeoffs. The choice ultimately depends on what you, the customer, require from your virtualization solution. With partners like VMware, Red Hat, Novell, Intel and AMD, we are committed to providing customers with a choice of virtualization technologies. For more information visit http://www.dell.com/virtualization.

Comments  Comment RSS Feed

jebtang said:
Good explanation about the difference between the Vmware and Xenon the I/O part.

The farther question like this:  Who is more serious impacted by the physical hardware malfunction ?

As the Guest OS of Xen only can access the physcial device by gothough the service VM, how can we prevent the service VM from the hardware failure ?

For the Vmware, as all of virtual devices will based on ESX kernel which drive from the RHEL linux kernel. The failure of ESX kernel will blow up everything...

Based on my understanding, Xen seems more robust as the Guest OS can use more device from the service VM.

Or maybe I am wrong ?
In a previous post on virtualization, Direct2Dell reader John Oliver asked for a comparison between Xen and VMware. In this post, I’ll cover some of the differences in architecture behind these two virtualization products and how the technology is shaping
GXMAN said:
Actually, if you take into account VMware's HA strategy, it is more robust when it comes to hardware failure.
 
Another thing left out of the article is Xen's lack of support for anything but linux at the current time.  I had heard of upcoming support for Windows, but this will be a GEN1 product where VMware is already at version 3 with Windows support.
 
Also is VMware's Virtual Center with VMotion technology.  For the *Enterprise* this is where its at.  Xen maybe good for some small time projects but for real server consolidation, there's not much to stand on with Xen.
Andrej said:
@GXMAN: Wrong, Xen has been capable of running Windows guests ever since version 3.0, and that has been around since the beginning of 2006. In fact Xen is the first mover on the ground of Intel VT / AMD-V (Vanderpool / Pacifica) is concerned.

Don't confuse Xen with XenEnterprise, the commercial and packaged version of Xen by XenSource. Here integrated Windows-support is coming up but not yet available.

Cheers,
A.
Rik said:
However, the Intel VT / AMD-V enhancements are still very limited.  Benchmarks show that VMWare ESX is still faster today than Xen is with the Processor assist. Plus you have to re-compile the Guest OS. VMWare ESX lets you run a un-modified version of the OS. No compatibility issues when you have that.
Jet said:
Portability. IMHO, portability is very important. One great advantage with VMware is, I can easily port (copy) the vm image to another (more powerful) machine running ESX and just start. How about Xen? For example, migrate the image from an old machine running IDE to a new machine running SCSI drive. I haven't try this before. I think someone might have a hard time to do so.
Darren said:

In response to Jet:

 I'm afraid you can't do that with ESX either; ESX only supports virtual machines on VMFS, which cannot be used on IDE drives....

Kevin said:
Can you not use Raw Device Mapping (RDM) with IDE drives? You don't have to use VMFS.
Andy Bentley said:

We have been running a suit of servers in VMWare for some time.  We would like to be able to port those VMWare images to Xen. Is there a free/opensource way to do that ?
 

David Schmidt, Virtualization Engineering Manager said:

Andy,

Currently the QEMU project has some tools to convert from VMDK to the formats supported by Xen.  Specifically you can use the qemu-img command to convert your virtual machine disks. Check out these links for more info:

Additionally, there are some license-based software tools that provide V2V migration across many different hypervisors.

Leave a Comment

Compose
Preview
(required ) 
(required , not published) 
(optional )
(required ) 

Note: Conversation is encouraged and expected. However, moderation of comments is necessary to prevent spam, personal attacks, profanity, mentions of legal action or off-topic commentary. We will not publish comments that advertise third-party shopping sites or ones that violate our terms of service.

Comments related to specific product support or customer service issues will be addressed separately rather than posted here. Please use the links in Contact Us for product and customer service assistance.