Re: [libvirt] libvirt vs XenAPI

On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 10:59:09AM +0200, atif bajwa wrote: There are many benefits to using libvirt instead of XenAPI - Avoids your application being locked into a particular hypervisor allowing you to port your application to KVM, OpenVZ, LXC (native Linux containers) and any hypervisor supported by libvirt in future - livirt works with every version of Xen 3.0.x or later, XenAPI is only usable in Xen 3.1.0 and later and thus not available in some distros such as RHEL-5/CentOS-5 - The same API can be used both locally, and remotely. Local access is highly efficient making direct hypercalls whereever possible giving order of magnitude better response time than XenAPI. - Remote access can be secured using SSL + x509 certificates, SSH tunnel, Kerberos GSSAPI single sign on, username + password - Guarenteed stable API, so applications written against libvirt will continue to work indefinitely into the future There's probably more points I can come up with, but that's enough for now. As for the future, libvirt is now available in every major Linux distro, and used by a wide range of tools developed by numerous companies & has contributors from across the open source community, both independant and vendor sponsered. There is an ever increasing set of language bindings for the API (Python, Perl, Java, OCaml, Ruby) and mappings into the CIM / DMTF framework for virtualzation, and new work to provide an AMQP binding. And of course this is also ongoing work to expand the API functionality and add new hypervisor drivers. There's a healthy todo list of ideas we'll be addressing over the next year or so... http://wiki.libvirt.org/page/Todo Regards, Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|