On 05/28/2017 08:34 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > I think your mail just very much eplained why this arbitrary type 1 > vs type 2 classification doesn't make any sense at all. > As of myself, I would consider more the "type 1 vs type 2" thing as a continuum rather than two distinct solutions. Most if not all modern virtualization solutions probably lies somewhere between those two extreme cases. Unfortunately, per the course curriculum, I cannot avoid dealing with that subject. I will probably explain why "type 1 vs type 2" is a rather theoretical and mostly outdated concept (any reference to support that point would be welcome ;) ) But remains the fact I don't feel confident enough yet to answer a question like "Is KVM type 1 or type 2?" It is somewhat more easy to answer that question for Xen or Hyper-V--since the dom0/Parent partition *is* really handled as a VM by those hypervisors. But I don't think there is a similar concept with KVM. Or is there? An other argument I read is KVM is "type 1" because the hypervisor runs in kernel space. Whereas (for example) VirtualBox is type 2 because the hypervisor runs in user space. But that feels like an oversimplification to me. If tomorrow Oracle released VirtualBox as a kernel module rather than a user space application, would that really made them consider it as "type 1"? If so, that would certainly prove the "type 1 vs type 2" thing as being nothing more than a marketing argument... -- -- Sylvain Leroux -- sylvain@xxxxxxxxxxx -- http://www.chicoree.fr
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
