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

    XCP-ng Footprint Size

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Development
    10 Posts 4 Posters 2.4k 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

                        Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.

                        Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.

                        With your input, this post could be even better πŸ’—

                        Register Login
                        • First post
                          Last post