Re: VMWARE/ESXi Linux

On 12/3/2024 7:41 PM, Dan Cross wrote:

In article <vio70q$e1fp$1@dont-email.me>,
Arne Vajhøj  <arne@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.