From: arne@vajhoej.dk   
      
   On 12/3/2024 10:55 AM, Dan Cross wrote:   
   > In article ,   
   > Arne Vajhøj   wrote:   
   >> On 12/3/2024 10:36 AM, Dan Cross wrote:   
   >>> In article ,   
   >>> Arne Vajhøj   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 The question was whether the type 1 vs type 2 distinction is obsolete.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 is obsolete or useless.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   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)