From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net   
      
   In article ,   
   Arne Vajhøj   wrote:   
   >On 12/3/2024 7:41 PM, Dan Cross wrote:   
   >> In article ,   
   >> Arne Vajhøj   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.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)