Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!panix!.POSTED.spitfire.i.gajendra.net!not-for-mail From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) Newsgroups: comp.os.vms Subject: Re: VMWARE/ESXi Linux Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2024 13:24:17 -0000 (UTC) Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Message-ID: References: Injection-Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2024 13:24:17 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: reader2.panix.com; posting-host="spitfire.i.gajendra.net:166.84.136.80"; logging-data="11153"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com" X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010) Originator: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) Bytes: 7611 Lines: 134 In article , Matthew R. Wilson wrote: >On 2024-11-28, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 22:24 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), John Dallman wrote: >> >>> In article , ldo@nz.invalid (Lawrence >>> D'Oliveiro) wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 16:33:56 -0500, David Turner wrote: >>>> >>>>> I keep being told that VMWARE is not an OS in itself. >>>>> But it is... based on Ubuntu Kernel.... stripped down but still >>>>> Linux >>>> >>>> And not even using the native KVM virtualization architecture that is >>>> built into Linux. >>> >>> History: VMware ESXi was released in 2001 and KVM was merged into the >>> Linux kernel in 2007. >> >> In other words, VMware has long been obsoleted by better solutions. > >Please explain how ESXi is obsolete, and how KVM is a better solution. I wouldn't bother trying to argue with him: he's a known troll. >Both KVM and ESXi use the processor's VT-d (or AMD's equivalent, AMD-Vi) >extensions on x86 to efficiently handle instructions that require >hypervisor intervention. I'm not sure how you'd judge which one is a >better solution in that regard. So the only thing that matters, really, >is the virtualization of everything other than the processor itself. So Goldberg defined two "types" of hypervisor in his dissertation: Types 1 and 2. Of course, this is an over simplification, and those of us who work on OSes and hypervisors understand that these distinctions are blurry and more on a continuum than hard and fast buckets, but to a first order approximation these categories are useful. Roughly, a Type-1 hypervisor is one that runs on the bare metal and only supports guests; usually some special guest is designated as a trusted "root VM". Xen, ESXi, and Hyper-V are examples of Type-1 hypervisors. Again, roughly, a Type-2 hypervisor is one that runs in the context of an existing operating system, using its services and implementation for some of its functionality; examples include KVM (they _say_ it's type 1, but that's really not true) and PA1050. Usually with a Type-2 HV you've got a userspace program running under the host operating system that provides control functionality, device models, and so on. QEMU is an example of such a thing (sometimes, confusingly, this is called the hypervisor while the kernel-resident component, is called the Virtual Machine Monitor, or VMM), but other examples exist: CrosVM, for instance. >KVM is largely dependent on qemu to provide the rest of the actual >virtual system. I think that QEMU is what one _often_ uses, but it doesn't have to be. I mentioned CrosVM above, which works with KVM, but other examplex exist: Google, Amazon, and AliBaba all use KVM on their cloud offerings, but at least neither Google nor Amazon use QEMU; I don't know about AliBaba but I suspect they have their own. (Microsoft of course uses Hyper-V.) >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. > >(As an aside, VMWare's _desktop_ [not server] virtualization product, >VMWare Workstation, looks like it's making moves to use KVM under the >hood, but they have said they will continue using their own proprietary >virtual devices and drivers, which is really what sets VMWare apart from >qemu. This is a move they've already made on both the Windows and Mac OS >version of VMWare Workstation if I understand correctly [utilizing >Hyper-V and Apple's Virtualization framework]. This makes sense... as I >said, the underlying virtualization of the processor is being handled by >the VT-x capabilities of the processor whether you're using VMWare, >VirtualBox, KVM, etc., so when running a desktop product under Linux, >you may as well use KVM but you still need other software to build the >rest of the virtual system and its virtual devices, so that's where >VMWare and qemu will still differentiate themselves. None of this is >relevant for ESXi, though, because as has been pointed out earlier in >the thread, it is not running on Linux at all, so VMKernel is providing >its own implementation of, essentially, what KVM provides in the Linux >kernel.) Well, what KVM provides+a whole lot more. ESXi is effectively its own operating system, even though it's marketed as a type-1 HV. >qemu and KVM have the huge advantage that they are open source and free >software, of course, whereas ESXi (and vCenter) are closed source and >expensive (barring the old no-cost ESXi license). > >But ESXi just works. It's solid, it has a huge infrastructure around it >for vSAN stuff, virtual networking management, vMotion "just works," I >find the management interface nicer than, say, Proxmox (although Proxmox >is an impressive product), etc. > >It's sad to see Broadcom is going to do everything they can to drive >away the VMWare customer base. VMWare will lose its market-leader >position, FAR fewer people will learn about it and experiment with it >since Broadcom killed the no-cost ESXi licenses, and popularity of >Proxmox is going to skyrocket, I suspect. Which isn't a bad thing -- >when open source solutions get attention and traction, they continue to >improve, and as I said earlier, Proxmox is already an impressive product >so I look forward to its future. > >But make no mistake: VMWare was -- and I'd say still is -- the gold >standard for virtualization, both on the server (ESXi) and the >workstation (VMWare Workstation). VMWare's downfall at the hands of >Broadcom will 100% be due to Broadcom's business practices, not >technology. Yup, it's a bit sad, though it does open up a lot of market opportunities for other players. >I'm a bit of a free software zealot, yet even I still use ESXi for my >"real" servers. I do look forward to eventually replacing my ESXi boxes >with Proxmox for philosophical reasons, but I'm in no rush. Check out Bhyve; it's very nice. - Dan C.