[Info-vax] VMWARE/ESXi Linux

[Dan Cross]

In article <vio91g$e1fq$1 at dont-email.me>,
Arne Vajhøj  <arne at vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>On 12/3/2024 7:41 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <vio70q$e1fp$1 at dont-email.me>,
>> Arne Vajhøj  <arne at vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>> On 12/3/2024 3:24 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 09:40:40 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> What people discovered was, they needed to run full-fat system management
>>>> suites, reporting tools, backup/maintenance tools etc on the hypervisor.
>>>> In other words, all the regular filesystem-management functions you need
>>>> on any server machine. So having it be a cut-down kernel (“type 1”) didn’t
>>>> cut it any more -- virtualization is nowadays done on full-function Linux
>>>> kernels (all “type 2”).
>>>
>>> Having a full host OS is very nice for a development system with a few
>>> VM's to build and test various stuff.
>>>
>>> It does not scale to a large production environment. For that you need
>>> central management servers.
>> 
>> There are some very senior engineers at Google and Amazon who
>> run the largest VM-based production environments on the planet
>> and they disagree.  There, VMs run under a "full host OS."
>
>You totally missed the point.
>
>With KVM they do have a full host OS.
>
>But they don't need it to "run full-fat system management
>suites, reporting tools, backup/maintenance tools etc on
>the hypervisor", because they don't manage all those VM's
>that way. That would be impossible.

Actually, they do.

	- Dan C.