Xen vs. OpenVZ
As I wrote in a previous post, I wanna share my conclusion about this two virtualization technologies, Xen and OpenVZ. Even if its kind of late, I still will share this conclusions with you guys. Now both of this technologies are usually used in VPS’s (virtual private servers) and small enterprise environments, well mostly Xen.
This are low cost techniques to give everyone the possibility to have a dedicated environment for work or for a web server, mail server and so on. The basic idea is the same, but within them they are totally different, because Xen is more of a physical virtualization, when OpenVZ is more of a container on already running server. OpenVZ doesn’t really create a virtual server, its creates an environment similar to a chroot environment with more flexibility and totally isolated from the physical server. Xen technology is very similar to VMware ESX, will create a virtual server, which can be managed and modified as a real server, modules can be loaded into the kernel, full iptables support, proper development environment and of course just like OpenVZ, is totally private or isolated.
The main issue with Xen is that usually is limited in hardware, meaning that when you chose a system with 256MB of memory, pretty much that’s what you get, unlike OpenVZ, which can have something like soft limit and hard limit when it comes to memory and cpu. This means that if you get an OpenVZ VPS and you get it with 256MB of memory, its possible to use even 1024MB of memory, if its available and depends on settings done by the provider. Like I said before OpenVZ is very similar to a chroot environment, in which you limit the user to a certain amount of memory, disk, bandwidth, but you also give the user the possibility in choosing the OS, packages and different settings. Both of them have root access and possibility of having users, services and static ip addresses and so on.
The main issue would be that they are kind of slow, due to a software layer which needs to communicate with the server kernel on which they reside which also then needs to communicate with the hardware. The response of a VPS is much slower, when compared to a physical system with the same specification but without being a virtual layer itself.
When it comes to Xen and OpenVZ, to compare them, Xen will have to win. First of all, Xen is more of a hardware virtualization, which means its more closer to a physical system, unlike OpenVZ, which is more similar to chroot environment or software virtualization. Other issues, in OpenVZ, would be the fact that you are very limited to what you can setup, what you can modify or even build. In all cases, OpenVZ doesn’t really support any modules and in fact I do believe it can’t even load any kernel modules, also because of this, iptables is very limited too. OpenVZ doesn’t have swap space, is using the physical system swap space, can’t have its own time server or locale, as is using the physical system’s settings, but if you need a small system for a website, with not a lot of hits, maybe a blog or company site, then OpenVZ will be able to do the job. If you need something more serious, like maybe development environment, true hardware resources, jvm servers, an e-shop, then Xen is the winner and not just, like I said, its more useful to have Xen, as the performance is in every way much better, the only issue would be that it can’t be managed using a panel like OpenVZ and can’t have burstable RAM or CPU.
Now, I know, this is not what most of you expected, but the reality is the Xen is better, its much more serious as a server and it does look and behave a lot like a physical server or dedicated server. I would say that the main difference between Xen and OpenVZ would be that, those who pick OpenVZ don’t really wanna work or do not know how to work with the console, as with the panel from Parallels they can do any job they need with a click of a button. You don’t really need to know anything about Linux or administrating a server. Xen, just like a physical server needs to be configured and setup from the console, you need to login into the server, thru the console or ssh and do everything by hand, which can be a bit of a hassle for a beginner or Windows guy
.
Anyway, at anytime without any doubt, I would always go for Xen, well actually I would love VMware ESX or IBM LPARs, but my pocket is way to small for them ![]()
There is obviously a lot to know about this. I think you made some good points in Features also.
Great post.
.
U resolve me some problems
Thank you.
Take the comments on this site with a huge grain of salt. Some of the statements about OpenVZ are false, and the speed benefits of OpenVZ over Xen are well proven by HP labs and others. In short, if you are considering OpenVZ, ignore this article and do your research elsewhere.
I do believe you are wrong, I based my comments on actual test in simple environments which normal people or small companies would use day by day. I don’t really care what was or wasn’t proven in HP labs, I care about what I found and I wanna share it
Like George Pajari, i do not agree with the following statements about OpenVZ:
- it can’t even load any kernel modules -> Wrong, build your kernel : http://wiki.openvz.org/Kernel_build
- iptables is very limited -> Wrong, you can build a complete iptables firewall
- can’t have its own time server or locale -> Wrong ntp is supported as well as custom locales
- those who pick OpenVZ don’t really wanna work or do not know how to work with the console -> Wrong there is no panel for OpenVZ, you are speaking of Virtuozzo or Proxmox here
I’m managing more than 20 OpenVZ VPS’s in a corporate environnement with more than 150 users, Samba, LDAP, Dovecot, MySQL, PostgreSQL, Bind, vsFTP, Squid, Apache… and all is working smoothly…
So readers, made some test by yourself, you will find OpenVZ simple, fast, easy to setup… far more easy to setup and manage from what Xen and VMware will offer to you.

Anyway, thanks for this article, every point of view is interesting… even the worse.
Quote: “…those who pick OpenVZ don’t really wanna work or do not know how to work with the console.”
You evidently didn’t spend much time with OpenVZ — or as someone wrote earlier, you got it confused with products based on it. You won’t get very far with tweaking OpenVZ without liberal use of the terminal and the vzctl command. At the same time, you can create and manage a VM completely from a web GUI if you use the Proxmox VE. I wrote an article about it here:
http://surveypoint.com/wp/?p=3
Xen does emulate a physical server more closely, but in exchange its 2-5 times slower than OpenVZ for disk IO.
To test this, just compile a large project under both technologies. The differences are shocking.
Xen gives you the ability to install custom kernels, but at the expense of much slower performance.
OpenVZ on the other hand gives you only a 1-3% performance hit from the hardware.
So if you are in a production environment using Linux software and want your virtual servers to perform like real ones, use OpenVZ.
If you are a Linux kernel developer and you don’t mind the very slow disk IO, go with Xen.
Both are good technologies built for specific purposes.
This is another example of someone spreading FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) across the internet about a technology they have zero grasp on.
The only thing that was correct was the memory allocation comments, and what types of virtualization each product is.
Other than that, all his little side comments about kernel modules, iptables, and the like. Thats simply this editors inexperience with a Linux kernel, he simply does not know how to do these things, so he assumes that they are unavailable. He also mentions that OpenVZ is for people who don’t know how to use a console… Again do not listen to him, if your looking for a virtualization technology that does not require console OpenVZ is the furthest you can possibly get from that. OpenVZ requires that 100% of its management is done on a system (root) level console administration terminal.
There are very few facts in this blog.
To be honest at the moment you have done the same thing regarding Xen. I’m kind of sure that you have no much of an idea about Xen or in general virtualization. If you don’t it’s ok, if you like OpenVZ, it’s ok also, but don’t try be look important based on nothing.
Regarding the kernel, sorry, you have no idea what you’re saying. Simply as a client there are way too many restriction on an OpenVZ/Virtuozzo guest then Xen guest. I might be wrong in some parts, but you are definitely wrong in most.
Author’s knowledge regarding both OpenVZ and XEN is very limited and one should not take this post into account at all.
OpenVZ and XEN Better ??
Note I want to host VPS ?
Thank you
From my own point of view Xen or KVM… but you should do some research to make sure, which would be better for you.
author is retarded. the only thing he’s right about is memory allocation, and honestly who gives a crap because the performance is better. As long as a provider doesnt abuse the ability to oversell, then it shouldn’t be a problem.
You have no idea whats the difference between OpenVZ and Xen, plus you making commercials for your company or a company that sells OpenVZ VPS accounts, very nice, try to shut-up and stop making commercials on other people’s web site.
Great post. show me the way. Thanks
well i have xen right onmy server, and it works and its fast, an di am about sign with openvz sense they offer them cheaper and read they are faster, but i have one concern, read open vz use more memory then xen, is that true
Hello, depends on what you wanna use it, both of them are fast, but they also one pluses and minuses. Also they are not the same thing, not the same type of virtualization.
Xen vs. OpenVZ…
As I wrote in a previous post, I wanna share my conclusion about this two virtualization technologies, Xen and OpenVZ. Even if its kind of late, I still will share this conclusions with you guys. Now both of this technologies are usually used in VPS’s …