[Info-vax] VMWARE/ESXi Linux

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 12/3/2024 10:55 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
> 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 The question was whether the type 1 vs type 2 distinction is obsolete.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 is obsolete or useless.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 post I was replying to called it obsolete. So that was the topic
of my post.

>> 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,

Is is your experience that people do their development on ESXi/KVM
and run their production on VMWare Player/VirtualBox?

:-)

People do development on VMWare Player/VirtualBox and run
production on ESXi/KVM.

>                                                       so it is
> hard to see how it "proves" anything.  KVM is used extensively
> in production and is a type-2 hypervisor, for example.

When I wrote "is labeled" I am talking about what the
authors and the industry in general are calling it.

In that sense KVM is a labeled a type 1 hypervisor. I can
find Redhat links if you don't believe me.

That you consider it to be type 2 does not really matter.

>                                                   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).

True.

The type 1 for production and type 2 for development does
not hold in the mainframe world.

Arne