Re: [Xen-users] who comes from kvm?

[Steve Sapovits <steves06@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2/13/2011 6:45 PM, Javier Guerra Giraldez wrote:

> Just to clarify, my comment was about the characterization of KVM as a
> type 2 hypervisor.  it's not.
Maybe it's a 1.5?  8-)  I've seen the debate over whether it's a
type 1 or type 2.  It's not 100% clear, at least to me.  It used
to be that any VM platform that ran as an extension to an existing
OS was considered a type 2.  But, in the hardware access view of
things, I can see how KVM would be considered a type 1.

I think we can agree that KVM is not a traditional type 1 or type 2.
We can probably also agree that the type 1/type 2 distinction in of
itself doesn't matter if the platform does what you need it to do.

In my mind, I always felt if I used the hosting Linux OS to only run
VM's then KVM isn't much different than Xen.  But if I were to take
the hosting OS and do a lot more with it -- desktop, etc. -- it starts
to feel less like a type 1.

Now you've got me thinking about playing with KVM again.  It's been
a few years ...

--
Steve Sapovits  steves06@xxxxxxxxxxx

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users