XCP-ng
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    XCP-ng Footprint Size

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Development
    10 Posts 4 Posters 1.4k Views 1 Watching
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • L Offline
      LonnieTC
      last edited by

      Hello All,

      I have been researching Type-1 hypervisors ranging from XCP-ng, SmartOS, Proxmox, Hyper-V, etc. for a project that I starting up.

      For my project (really more of a prototype), I need to find the most lightweight Type-1 Hypervisor that I can, preferably open source, that needs to have an extremely small foortprint as it will probably load via iPXE and I am considering it to be ram-based for the hypervisor while keeping the VM's on hard disk, and network drives.

      In any case, I am trying to find out what the footprint size of XCP-ng is and what it would take to make it a small as possible since quick loading would be important.

      Any suggestions or information would be very helpful during this "design" stage.
      Thanks

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • olivierlambertO Offline
        olivierlambert Vates πŸͺ Co-Founder CEO
        last edited by

        If you search something close to the embed world, I would suggest Xen hypervisor on a lightweight distro available (Alpine Linux?)

        XCP-ng contains tools for general purpose virt platform, with XAPI, OpenvSwitch and other "large" tools useful outside embed world.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • ruskofdR Offline
          ruskofd
          last edited by

          Xen and QEMU / KVM may be lightweight, but may lack functionality and easy tooling compare to XCP-ng. It depends what's your needs.

          And if you need something running in RAM, you need to look on VMware ESXi or SmartOS (which use KVM as hypervisor for VMs)

          M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • M Offline
            MartinB @ruskofd
            last edited by

            @ruskofd It reminds me of a Xen flavour that was booting up from PXE, virtualiron. I think it was acquired by Oracle.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • ruskofdR Offline
              ruskofd
              last edited by

              I only know the Oracle VM product that is also based on Xen and seems a kind of XenServer, but it doesn't seems very widespread at all (and it's Oracle behind hum πŸ˜’) . Didn't know about Virtual Iron.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • L Offline
                LonnieTC
                last edited by

                Thanks all for the information.

                I actually have investigated SmartOS a bit and think that it is a really nice hypervisor and has huge potential, but seems to have some limitations for what I am seeking. SmartOS supports ZFS by default and dealing with VM's is really easy, but it does not yet support PCI Passthrough or various filesystems like ext3/4, ntfs, etc... but does run ram-based and is very stable from that standpoint. Also, SmartOS now supports Bhyve as well as KVM for the VM's

                In general, I was going to try to use that one for the project (prototype) that I am working on until I realized that I wanted to have a bit more features that Xen (XCP-ng) seems to offer although I guess that the trade off is the footprint size being bigger.

                This made me start wondering if it might be possible to trim down XCP-ng a bit so that it could be reasonably small and work along the PXE-boot idea like SmartOS, perhaps. Didn't really want to go along the VMware path for the project.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • ruskofdR Offline
                  ruskofd
                  last edited by

                  If you want features, you can't trim down software indefinitely. XCP-ng is not that heavy compare to some concurrents. The regular ISO size is around 600 MiB, but you can also use the netinstall iso which is slimmed down to 100 MiB.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • L Offline
                    LonnieTC
                    last edited by

                    Yea, I actually agree in that it is really not that heavy compared to other hypervisors and I really want the features included that it offers.

                    Thanks to all for answering this for me.
                    Have a good weekend

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • olivierlambertO Offline
                      olivierlambert Vates πŸͺ Co-Founder CEO
                      last edited by

                      Keep us posted if you managed to do something you like (or not) with it πŸ™‚

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • L Offline
                        LonnieTC
                        last edited by

                        Thanks. I sure will. Hopefully the project design will go well. πŸ˜€

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • First post
                          Last post