You're conflating several issues, which lends credence to my initial complaint.
I am not stating that Xen or KVM are lesser in performance vs ESX. Beta software typically runs faster than fully mature software, because it does less. Xen is one long ongoing beta.
You are comical. Yeah you did. You said..
But if we're talking corporate boxes, ESX can handle more load than anything else, anywhere, period, because of its Type 1 maturity and efficiency. I think your phraseology omits the framework of your point of view.
You feel like ninja editing that last post? In terms of Xen being some on going Beta that really only applies to the opensource versions. A full blown version of Citrix XenServer bought and paid for is anything but "beta". Not to mention ESX runs a 2.4 Linux kernel which is no different from Xen since the last time I built it, while KVM is built into the 2.6 linux kernel itself. Your amalgamation of beta software equaling performance is quite bizarre as beta software is about fixing issues within a product that's feature locked. Alpha software are builds which do not have all of the planned features for production.
The whole point of a Type 1 hypervisor is that is DOES'NT do more than it needs to and it doesn't load/access or make available resources it doesn't need. That's the whole point of a micro-kernel. The group think is that while a micro-kernel can lose some of it's ability to be used on a variety of hardware, it's tailor made to the hardware and it's not carrying the excess bloat of a full fledged kernel. Thus technically it should be faster than a macro-kernel + virt libraries (KVM) or macro-kernel + 3rd party virtualization (Virtualbox). However, in practice this doesn't necessarily translate to be true. Least of which is because of the sheer rate of improvement of Linux itself or the third party applications which make use of it.
So, the comparison there is maturity, stability, and robustness.
Vs. another stable robust competitor, MS Hyper-V, ESX competes on performance.
Xen is older than HyperV by YEARS (2003). The final version of Hyper V didn't even arrive until 2008 R2. As for stability and robustness, let me know when you can provide a benchmark on that. IBM seems to be able to sell KVM as apart of their solutions. Citrix seems to be ok. Are you trying to tell me that IBM is selling Beta software at tens of thousands of dollars a pop? You know the IBM who makes money in the enterprise space?
For every comment you've made there's benchmarks a plenty disproving your notion. I would know since I ran most of them for months before putting any one of them into production. While pissing matches are nice, they don't really help people. So unless you've got a problem setting up KVM, Xen, or ESX continuing this "discussion" is a waste of time.