Re: VMWARE/ESXi Linux

On 12/3/2024 10:55 AM, Dan Cross wrote:

In article <vin939$3sjr$5@dont-email.me>,
Arne Vajhøj  <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:

On 12/3/2024 10:36 AM, Dan Cross wrote:

In article <vin597$3sjr$2@dont-email.me>,
Arne Vajhøj  <arne@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The question was whether the type 1 vs type 2 distinction is obsolete.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is obsolete or useless.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