[Info-vax] VMWARE/ESXi Linux

[Dan Cross]

In article <vin939$3sjr$5 at dont-email.me>,
Arne Vajhøj  <arne at vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>On 12/3/2024 10:36 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <vin597$3sjr$2 at dont-email.me>,
>> Arne Vajhøj  <arne at vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>> On 12/2/2024 11:57 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 03:09:15 -0000 (UTC), Waldek Hebisch wrote:
>>>>>   From what you wrote seem that ESXi is more similar to Xen than to
>>>>> KVM+qemu, that is ESXi and Xen discourage running unvirtualized programs
>>>>> while in KVM+qemu some (frequently most) programs is running
>>>>> unvirtualized and only rest is virtualized.
>>>>
>>>> I think that dates back to the old distinction between “type 1” and “type
>>>> 2“ hypervisors. It’s an obsolete distinction nowadays.
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> If you look at what is available and what it is used for then you will
>>> see that what is labeled type 1 is used for production and what is
>>> labeled type 2 is used for development. It matters.
>> 
>> No, that has nothing to do with it.
>
>Yes. It has.
>
>The question was whether the type 1 vs type 2 distinction is obsolete.

As I've posted on numerous occasions, at length, citing primary
sources, the distinction is not exact; that doesn't mean that it
is obsolete or useless.

>The fact that "what is labeled type 1 is used for production and what is
>labeled type 2 is used for development" proves that people think it
>matters.

That seems to be something you invented: I can find no serious
reference that suggests that what you wrote is true, so it is
hard to see how it "proves" anything.  KVM is used extensively
in production and is a type-2 hypervisor, for example.  z/VM is
used extensively in production, and claims to be a type-2
hypervisor (even though it more closely resembles a type-1 HV).

>So either almost everybody is wrong or it matters.

Well, I think you are wrong, yes.

Again, As I mentioned, and as I've posted here at length before,
the distinction is blurly and exists on a spectrum; it is not a
rigid thing.  That doesn't imply that it is not useful, or
obsolete.

	- Dan C.