[Info-vax] vtAlpha and marketing bullshit

[Paul Sture]

On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 05:05:58 -0800, John Wallace wrote:

> On Dec 18, 10:06 am, Pinocchio <pinoc... at gmx.com> wrote:
>> Hi all!
>> "Bare metal approach" of vtAlpha is nothing but a f*ing marketing.
>> vtAlpha is a modified Linux SuSe distribution with a simulator binaries
>> running on top. So all their "no OS overhead" claims are false. Think,
>> instead posting some real benchmarks they are pumping us with a
>> bullshit. Definitely ground to double think before selecting this
>> simluator. Besides are they violating GNU license? I didn't see any
>> links to sources on their web site.
>>
>> P.S. I am not affiliated with any commercial Alpha simulator supplier.
>> I only hate marketing bullshit.
>>
> 
> Welcome to the modern world of IT, where an expression means exactly
> what the vendor wants it to mean.
> 
> Don't be too harsh on these particular folks though.
> 
> They're just using the same definition of "bare metal" that the
> HYPEervisor people have been using for years, and very few people bother
> questioning or correcting their definition. I do, occasionally, but it
> doesn't usually sink in.
> 
> "Bare metal" HYPErvisors for x86-on-x86 are a joke too, but the
> expression seems now to be accepted. See also "Type 1" HYPErvisor. War
> is peace, black is white, etc.

This article argues that the terms Type 1 and Type 2 have no practical 
meaning:

"The Myth of Type I and Type II Hypervisors"

http://blog.codemonkey.ws/2007/10/myth-of-type-i-and-type-ii-
hypervisors.html


--- quote ---
The important point to take away here is that all modern virtualization 
solutions (except for unaccelerated QEMU maybe) are technically "type-1" 
VMMs according to Robin. The things commonly cited as "type-2" VMMs like 
VMware Workstation, Parallels, VirtualPC, and KVM all rely on kernel 
modules which means they do have direct access to hardware. This makes 
all of these solutions "type-1" VMMs. What's more important though is 
that the distinction of "type-1" and "type-2" has absolutely no bearings 
on performance, robustness, or any other qualitative factor. It is merely 
a distinction made when attempting to formulate a proof about whether 
virtualization is possible or not. It starts to lose meaning too when an 
Operating System is capable of supporting a true "type-2" VMM (which 
arguable, the KVM interface in Linux enables). Does that mean that Linux 
is a "type-1" VMM and QEMU using the KVM interface is a "type-2" VMM? How 
can the same solution be both though?
--- end quote ---

An article from IBM:

http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/eserver/v1r2/index.jsp?topic=/
eicay/eicayvservers.htm
 
---quote ---
Type 2 hypervisors are also used mainly on systems where support for a 
broad range of I/O devices is important and can be provided by the host 
operating system.
--- end quote ---

I can see a direct application for this in the VMS world: Minimal USB 
support and poor performance on IDE disks - insert a hypervisor which 
presents those devices as ones VMS can take advantage of, and the 
problems go away for VMS.



> VMware have built a business out of this kind of game, and their history
> includes a legal dispute about their use of GPL software. Most IT
> departments just accept it through ignorance or laziness or whatever.
> 
> If I had to pick a Linux, for most of the last decade or so and for most
> of the likely applications (desktop, server, realtime) it would have
> been SuSe. Other Linuxes are available.
> 

Agreed, though with the latest release of openSUSE (12.1) the first few 
desktop apps I tried either didn't work or had greatly reduced 
functionality.  Is .1 the new .0 ?


-- 
Paul Sture