XEN, Open VZ or KVM?

[Softsys Hosting]

My vote goes for Xen / KVM as well to have full virtualization support for VPS'

 

[micohosting]

OpenVZ tends to perform better but using shared kernels. Also there is no way to limit the oversell.

KVM limits the oversell to Disk Space and its using its own kernel. Not recommended for low RAM VPS

XEN limits the oversell of RAM and using its own kernel too.

Also on XEN and KVM you can host windows VPS

Thats the simple diffrences between those virtualizations

 

[NocRoom]

openVZ, most users don't need the extras of KVM

 

[multiplecloud]

I prefer openvz. However KVM is more stable.

 

[HostColor]

I prefer openvz. However KVM is more stable.

Are you saying that OpenVZ is more unstable virtualization solution compared to Kernel-based VM?

 

[HostZealot]

KVM proved to be the best, imho

KVM is a reliable and long-used solution, granting stable performance even under peak loads, which is a huge benefit both for clientand for hosting provider. We use it since beginning operations back in 2009 and did not have a single compalint from clients. It is surely the best solution for VPS hosting.

 

[HometownServers]

My vote goes to XEN, its simple and works great. No need to look elsewhere.

 

[Hosting42]

Xen is all we provide. As for our reasoning on Xen is that they are more reliable and cannot be oversold. Customers max out at about per 32gb ram, 1TB Disk space on a XEN server due to the Hyper-V Function in Xen servers doesn't allow you to oversell more resources then you actually have which is a great plus therefore those server resources are officially dedicated to you.

In making a decision we would choose Xen although this choice is overall yours! Good luck!

Thank you.

 

[domaingood]

KVM is my prefer!

 

[Gaiacom_LC]

I enjoy working with Xen/Citrix the most. I find it to be the most reliable.

 

[maplehosting]

+1 for Xen.

Although in terms of Resource Utilization and being able to offer best performance for the dollar, I'd say hosting companies can usually use OpenVZ to reach that.

 

[KurotaTakumi]

I don't like Open VZ. Because it doesn't allow own kernel. Although it allow you to use the brust recources. But it is overselling.

 

[HostedInside]

Xen/citrix is my choice to. OpenVZ is slow .

 

[maplehosting]

I don't like Open VZ. Because it doesn't allow own kernel. Although it allow you to use the brust recources. But it is overselling.

It doesn't have to be. It just gives you the option to do it.

 

[ExeterWeb]

i used to use openvz all the time, but since ive used kvm i would say, go with kvm, you cant go wrong!

 

[fastneasy]

Xen since it's more like a dedicated server than Open VZ.

 

[Richard Leik]

KVM gives you more power with Windows, complicated firewalls, etc. Less overhead than Xen. Therefore, I'd chose KVM.

 

[dreamtera]

Best is XEN has many features.

But for flexibility you may choose KVM or OpenVZ.

But you may find OpenVZ much cheaper than XEN.

XEN is not oversold at most times so it is dedicated resources and not like OpenVZ.

I prefer XEN.

 

[helix247]

We chose KVM for our platform as it did not require any workarounds to get working with the latest CentOS. It was very straight forward to setup. If you will be a provider, the one thing I will say about openvz is that every "good" tool to manage/monitor VPS's seems to be made for openvz. So if you went the openvz way you can count on easy deployment, less upfront costs (depending on desired setup), tons of literature and forum posts, and an equally impressive array of tools.

 

[Dave_Hartigan]

Cheap OpenVZ is faster than cheap KVM/XEN.
Expensive KVM/XEN is better than expensive OpenVZ.