What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
It is hard to take a claim of existing proof and documentation without seeing those. You claim something is true - be ready to prove it.
I have, for years. You are claiming that those proofs are not true. You are claiming that not only I am wrong, but Wikipedia, Microsoft, and the industry. Yet don't even have a suggestion of supporting documentation. Based on what do you make these wild claims?
I'm simply agreeing that the sky is blue. You are claiming it red. But have nothing to support that theory.
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@scottalanmiller said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
You are circling back and ignoring what I've written. No, that's not enough to be an OS. I stated that explicitly a few times to make sure you'd not make this mistake, specifically about KVM. Kernel + "some stuff" isn't an OS on its own.
Sorry but I don't take your word for that, you say it is a mistake, I say it is not. A missile guided by an RTOS or an older phone that could only do a few things, still had operating systems in them, it's just that the scope of those OS's was narrower than that of Linux or Windows. And it isn't "some stuff" (I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth), it is software that utilizes the interfaces the kernel exposes to a specific purpose.
Now you are mixing apps with the OS. An RTOS can still do basically anything. As could a phone OS. You are mixing the concept of "general purpose" with the amount of power systems had in the past. Very different concepts.
-
Reference from 2008 era...
https://serverfault.com/questions/326844/is-hyper-v-a-real-hypervisor
When Hyper-V runs as a role on Windows Server 2008 and Windows Server 2008 R2 it's still and hypervisor.
It is type 1 (bare metal) in both cases.
The trick here is that when you install Hyper-V as a role on Windows Server 2008 R2 you see the Windows Server like a host OS and it is not. The setup converts the original OS in something like a VM and puts the hypervisor below. This is what is called the root or parent partition of Hyper-V. That's why you experience the same sped in what you see as the "real machine" and the virtual machines.
Would be extremely fishy for someone to have answered and known how Hyper-V would run in the future, but answered in the past, and got it so exactly correct.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
Dom0 has some schedulers, but that's not really relevant. If you understand type 1 vs type 2, then your statement here doesn't really make sense. I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
Why isn't it relevant? You have a kernel booted up, containing a set of drivers and schedulers, then you have a management VM coming up containing it's own kernel, drivers and schedulers, and some of the system calls a VM executes will have to go through the Dom0's schedulers, to reach the DomU drivers and make syscalls and some will go to the DomU. And yes, some will go to Dom0, which will direct them to DomU (there was a diagram published about all that circa 2011 with the specific calls). How is that more efficient that a single set of schedulers?
You can't just say "this is irrelevant" when it goes against the point you're trying to prove
-
@scottalanmiller said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
I have, for years. You are claiming that those proofs are not true. You are claiming that not only I am wrong, but Wikipedia, Microsoft, and the industry. Yet don't even have a suggestion of supporting documentation. Based on what do you make these wild claims?
I'm simply agreeing that the sky is blue. You are claiming it red. But have nothing to support that theory.
Oh no, you don't get to turn this one around. You claim hyper-v had the same architecture as xen since its first versions - you prove that.
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@scottalanmiller said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
Dom0 has some schedulers, but that's not really relevant. If you understand type 1 vs type 2, then your statement here doesn't really make sense. I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
Why isn't it relevant? You have a kernel booted up, containing a set of drivers and schedulers, then you have a management VM coming up containing it's own kernel, drivers and schedulers, and some of the system calls a VM executes will have to go through the Dom0's schedulers, to reach the DomU drivers and make syscalls and some will go to the DomU. And yes, some will go to Dom0, which will direct them to DomU (there was a diagram published about all that circa 2011 with the specific calls). How is that more efficient that a single set of schedulers?
You can't just say "this is irrelevant" when it goes against the point you're trying to prove
It's not relevant because it's not under the kernel, so unrelated to what we are discussing. You can layer on as many schedulers on top of things that you want. But we were talking about X and this simply doesn't relate to that discussion.
Your statement of "how is it more efficient than..." doesn't make any sense in this context. It implies something said that wasn't, so there is nothing clear to answer.
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@scottalanmiller said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
I have, for years. You are claiming that those proofs are not true. You are claiming that not only I am wrong, but Wikipedia, Microsoft, and the industry. Yet don't even have a suggestion of supporting documentation. Based on what do you make these wild claims?
I'm simply agreeing that the sky is blue. You are claiming it red. But have nothing to support that theory.
Oh no, you don't get to turn this one around. You claim hyper-v had the same architecture as xen since its first versions - you prove that.
I just did twice. You claimed it didn't.. based on what?
-
@scottalanmiller said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
Now you are mixing apps with the OS. An RTOS can still do basically anything. As could a phone OS. You are mixing the concept of "general purpose" with the amount of power systems had in the past. Very different concepts.
Nothing to do with power, just the ability to perform a set of operations on given hardware. If you implement an OS that is limited in what it can do, it is still an OS, that's all I'm saying
-
@scottalanmiller said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
It's not relevant because it's not under the kernel, so unrelated to what we are discussing. You can layer on as many schedulers on top of things that you want. But we were talking about X and this simply doesn't relate to that discussion.
Your statement of "how is it more efficient than..." doesn't make any sense in this context. It implies something said that wasn't, so there is nothing clear to answer.
Replace "efficient" with "better architecture" and try again, if you prefer to stick to the exact wording, I really don't mind
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@scottalanmiller said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
Now you are mixing apps with the OS. An RTOS can still do basically anything. As could a phone OS. You are mixing the concept of "general purpose" with the amount of power systems had in the past. Very different concepts.
Nothing to do with power, just the ability to perform a set of operations on given hardware. If you implement an OS that is limited in what it can do, it is still an OS, that's all I'm saying
And I'm saying it is not an OS if you do so. Calling it an OS makes it seem like it must be. But the real answer is "if you implement an system that falls short of being an OS, it's not an OS." You are starting the statement by claiming it is an OS, so no matter how limited it is, it can't be so limited as to not be an OS. You are using it being an OS as the starting point.
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@scottalanmiller said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
It's not relevant because it's not under the kernel, so unrelated to what we are discussing. You can layer on as many schedulers on top of things that you want. But we were talking about X and this simply doesn't relate to that discussion.
Your statement of "how is it more efficient than..." doesn't make any sense in this context. It implies something said that wasn't, so there is nothing clear to answer.
Replace "efficient" with "better architecture" and try again, if you prefer to stick to the exact wording, I really don't mind
My point was, whatever you asked didn't related to what was said. You are asking me to defend a point I didn't make.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
I just did twice.
By referring to a post you wrote? Not good enough
-
@scottalanmiller said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
And I'm saying it is not an OS if you do so. Calling it an OS makes it seem like it must be. But the real answer is "if you implement an system that falls short of being an OS, it's not an OS." You are starting the statement by claiming it is an OS, so no matter how limited it is, it can't be so limited as to not be an OS. You are using it being an OS as the starting point.
Because it is an OS, by the very definition you provided yourself.
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@scottalanmiller said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
I just did twice.
By referring to a post you wrote? Not good enough
No, I'm referring to the two references I provided. Wikipedia and StackOverflow.
Here is another...
https://www.brianmadden.com/opinion/Microsoft-Windows-Server-2008-Hyper-V-solution-overview
-
@dyasny said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
@scottalanmiller said in What would your recommendation be for a Type 1 Hypervisor - including backup and restoration options:
And I'm saying it is not an OS if you do so. Calling it an OS makes it seem like it must be. But the real answer is "if you implement an system that falls short of being an OS, it's not an OS." You are starting the statement by claiming it is an OS, so no matter how limited it is, it can't be so limited as to not be an OS. You are using it being an OS as the starting point.
Because it is an OS, by the very definition you provided yourself.
Then it can run whatever and your "limited" clearly isn't limited.
-
I've provided three references, plus have been through this countless times. At some point you need to produce something. Again, the sky is blue. At some point, standard knowledge being questioned needs some proof.
Sure, at some point, people didn't believe the Earth circles the sun. The "industry" can be wrong. But you still have to provide more than "I said so now" about something being something long ago. I wrote about this being a myth at the time.
-
-
Another wikipedia source written at the time...
-
Basically what I am saying is not that you can't be right, but you are solidly into the realm of conspiracy theory. You are stating that everyone discussing Hyper-V during the 2008 and 2008 R2 era (and everyone since), including Microsoft themselves, are involved in having produced a huge cover up. And one that would make no sense as their customers widely didn't care or understand anyway. Pretty much the entire industry has to be involved in a coordinated effort to support Microsoft's claim of how they designed their software.
And common sense says that given the failures of trying the Type 2 route to get to market quickly, and having had time to observe Xen and ESX success, and having the resources to build software like they do... that Microsoft would have done the logical thing - which all sources agree that they did.
So you see, I think it is reasonable to say that I have gone above and beyond, both at the time and regurgitating it now, to show that it is reasonable to believe Microsoft and the industry. If you want to claim it is all a conspiracy, fine. But there isn't even a behavioural hint, market value, or reason of any sort that we know of for Microsoft to have lied about this. It would have been easier to have just done it that way.
-
Another 2008 era resource (I'm using Google's time limiting to make sure I'm only getting content that hasn't been written later about it...)
