Mark, Of course, of course... Maybe I sounded like I was criticizing Canonical for that, but I wasn't. When your resources have some kind of limit you have to make choices. I'm also considering trying KVM on my solutions. Cheers, Leandro. <div>2008/4/11, Mark Goldfinch <<a href="mailto:g@g.org.nz">g@g.org.nz</a>>:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Leandro, Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"> I think that Canonical's choice for KVM have already made it clear that they won't support Xen at least for a while. </blockquote> I think Canonical's decision to support KVM reflects the level of complexity involved between the two solutions.. Also given that Xen is moving closer to complete support within the mainline kernel reflects a major milestone which KVM has already achieved.. I suspect Canonical just doesn't have the dedicated resources required to do complete support of Xen within their support program. This isn't necessarilly a reflection of their desire to support Xen, another example would be Sun not having native support of Xen within customer shipped versions of Solaris yet.. Thanks, Mark. </blockquote></div> -- Leandro Pereira de Lima e Silva