Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=C3=B8j?= <arne@vajhoej.dk>
Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
Subject: Re: VMWARE/ESXi Linux
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2024 09:42:42 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <vin5d1$3sjr$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vi84pm$6ct6$4@dont-email.me>
 <memo.20241127222417.12904R@jgd.cix.co.uk> <vi8fbt$829b$2@dont-email.me>
 <slrnvkgb2b.2dr8a.mwilson@daenerys.home.mattwilson.org>
 <vilsop$2qc5u$1@paganini.bofh.team> <vin4s8$3sjr$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2024 15:42:41 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f0368240d8cf72bb652abadb078e8c43";
	logging-data="127611"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18DF4od/VHj6/KqMW97/0D5PJ15e/BBcNk="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MQEB4uOWcV28t6y4a0pkTCiQIC4=
In-Reply-To: <vin4s8$3sjr$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2898

On 12/3/2024 9:33 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 12/2/2024 10:09 PM, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
>> Matthew R. Wilson <mwilson@mattwilson.org> wrote:
>>> KVM is largely dependent on qemu to provide the rest of the actual
>>> virtual system. qemu's a great project and I run a ton of desktop VMs
>>> with qemu+KVM, but it just doesn't have the level of maturity or
>>> edge-case support that ESXi does. Pretty much any x86 operating system,
>>> historical or current, _just works_ in ESXi.  With qemu+KVM, you're
>>> going to have good success with the "big name" OSes...Windows, Linux,
>>> the major BSDs, etc., but you're going to be fighting with quirks and
>>> problems if you're trying, say, old OS/2 releases. That's not relevant
>>> for most people looking for virtualization solutions, and the problems
>>> aren't always insurmountable, but you're claiming that KVM is a "better"
>>> solution, whereas in my experience, in reality, ESXi is the better
>>> technology.
>>
>> What you wrote is now very atypical use: faithfully implementing
>> all quirks of real devices.  More typical case is guest which
>> knows that it is running on a hypervisor and uses virtual
>> interface with no real counterpart.  For this quality of
>> virtual interfaces matters.  I do not know how ESXi compares
>> to KVM, but I know that "equivalent" but different virtual
>> interfaces in qemu+KVM may have markedly different performance.
> 
> Are you talking about paravirtual drivers?
> 
> To get back to VMS then I don't think VMS got any of those.

Hmm. Not correct. Reading 9.2-3 installation notes:

<quote>
Also, two para-virtualized NICs, virtio for KVM, and VMXNET 3 for ESXi.
</quote>

Arne