On 05/29/2017 10:13 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > To make some sense of them it might be better to understand them in > terms of use cases rather than implementation, e.g. in terms of > KVM someone running a VM or two in addition to a normal desktop Linux > (e.g. a kernel developer testing things, or a Windows VM for a certain > application) fits into the type 2 model, while a server whos primary > purpose is to host VMs it type 1. But with todays cloud or > hyperconverged architectures a single host system very often runs > VM and actualy workloads (e.g. storage backends or databases) as well. I like the idea of thinking in terms of use cases. Could you elaborate a little bit about that? If we could find an *unbiased* way of comparing the behavior of various "virtualization architecture" in some real world situation, I could add that to my course. And probably record it so it could be published on YouTube or elsewhere. That could be a way to help spreading the idea we can compare VM solutions differently than using a 40 years old classification. -- -- Sylvain Leroux -- sylvain@xxxxxxxx -- https://yesik.it
