You are not logged in.

#1 2019-02-20 17:50:50

4internetanonymity
Member
Registered: 2009-07-09
Posts: 29

Type-1 Hypervisors vs Linux Hosts

I'm trying to compare, for example, configs like ESXi to Arch Linux as the host OS. It is no fun having multiple host OSs on the same computer and having to reboot to switch between them. So what are the performance, feature, and compatibility benefits of either a type-1 hypervisor (ESXi) or a Linux host (Arch). Within Arch, I would be running VirtualBox or VMware - so that may be one downside, but I don't know that there would be a performance hit just because they're type-2 hypervisors. One important detail is that I need max performance from OSX as a guest.

Thanks - and I hope my question isn't too convoluted!

Last edited by 4internetanonymity (2019-02-20 18:07:18)

Offline

#2 2019-02-21 11:52:14

Lone_Wolf
Member
From: Netherlands, Europe
Registered: 2005-10-04
Posts: 7,195

Re: Type-1 Hypervisors vs Linux Hosts

One important detail is that I need max performance from OSX as a guest.

In my opinion the main performance difference between type 1 and type 2 hypervisors is with hardware support.
Type 2 hypervisors supply virtual hardware with generic specifications while type-1 can provide physical hardware.
(qemu with kvm is able to combine type2 and type 1 capabilities ).

Whether that disctinction matters depends on the tasks / guests you want to run.
Afaik Running max OSx on anything other then apple hardware is at best not supported by apple and at worst disallowed.
Assuming you do run apple hardware, giving the OSx guest access to the real hardware for which is it optimized
should give best performance >> type 1 hypervisor.

Last edited by Lone_Wolf (2019-02-21 11:52:53)


Multi-init booting with apg Openrc and systemd coexisting
Automounting : not needed, i prefer pmount
Aur helpers : makepkg + my own local repo === rarely need them

Offline

#3 2019-03-11 01:52:17

4internetanonymity
Member
Registered: 2009-07-09
Posts: 29

Re: Type-1 Hypervisors vs Linux Hosts

Lone_Wolf wrote:

One important detail is that I need max performance from OSX as a guest.

In my opinion the main performance difference between type 1 and type 2 hypervisors is with hardware support.
Type 2 hypervisors supply virtual hardware with generic specifications while type-1 can provide physical hardware.
(qemu with kvm is able to combine type2 and type 1 capabilities ).

Whether that disctinction matters depends on the tasks / guests you want to run.
Afaik Running max OSx on anything other then apple hardware is at best not supported by apple and at worst disallowed.
Assuming you do run apple hardware, giving the OSx guest access to the real hardware for which is it optimized
should give best performance >> type 1 hypervisor.

So type-1 vs type-2 for GPU support? Can type-1 do ZFS as rootfs? Certainly Arch can + type-2. Was hoping to get more input on this - surprisingly difficult to find real world comparisons of type 1 vs 2.

Offline

#4 2019-03-11 11:31:49

Lone_Wolf
Member
From: Netherlands, Europe
Registered: 2005-10-04
Posts: 7,195

Re: Type-1 Hypervisors vs Linux Hosts

surprisingly difficult to find real world comparisons of type 1 vs 2.

For many usecases the choice between them is simple.

Type 1 hypervisors are typically used in enterprise / cloud environments and come with tools suited to manage resources for multiple users and/ or  hardware installations .
Type 2 hypervisors are much more suited for individual use.

I've searched for a good explanation and think https://www.pluralsight.com/blog/it-ops … hypervisor should help to understand the difference between type 1 & 2 hypervisors .


Can type-1 do ZFS as rootfs?

Let's rephrase that to a more general question :
Does rootfs filesystem matter for a type 1 hypervisor ?

Last edited by Lone_Wolf (2019-03-11 11:32:01)


Multi-init booting with apg Openrc and systemd coexisting
Automounting : not needed, i prefer pmount
Aur helpers : makepkg + my own local repo === rarely need them

Offline

#5 2019-03-11 19:46:55

4internetanonymity
Member
Registered: 2009-07-09
Posts: 29

Re: Type-1 Hypervisors vs Linux Hosts

Lone_Wolf wrote:

Let's rephrase that to a more general question :
Does rootfs filesystem matter for a type 1 hypervisor ?

Well, if you want the advantages of ZFS, then you would want to run it on the host (in the case of type-2 hypervisor), right? In the case of KVM, people also seem to use ZFS with success. Can you explain more about your rephrased question? smile

Same question for GPUs - apparently a type-1 hypervisor would give more direct access than a type-2, right? So, would that allow one to use the latest nVIDIA drivers for the OSs that support them?

And in the case of KVM, then you'd have an Arch Linux host, just like when using a type-2 hypervisor.
Where is my thinking wrong?
Thanks.

Offline

#6 2019-03-12 12:34:58

Lone_Wolf
Member
From: Netherlands, Europe
Registered: 2005-10-04
Posts: 7,195

Re: Type-1 Hypervisors vs Linux Hosts

Well, if you want the advantages of ZFS, then you would want to run it on the host (in the case of type-2 hypervisor), right? In the case of KVM, people also seem to use ZFS with success. Can you explain more about your rephrased question? smile

Type 1 aka bare-metal hypervisors focus on managing physical resources while type 2 hypervisors focus on managing virtual resources.

Both allocate resources to clients. What the client does with those resources doesn't matter at all to the hypervisor.

ZFS requires disk devices or partitions . Does it care whether those disks are hdd , ssd , nas or san drives ?
I think zfs functionality stays the same regardless of the disks it uses.

TL;DR : hypervisors don't care what filesystems clients use.



Same question for GPUs - apparently a type-1 hypervisor would give more direct access than a type-2, right? So, would that allow one to use the latest nVIDIA drivers for the OSs that support them?

yes and yes .



And in the case of KVM, then you'd have an Arch Linux host, just like when using a type-2 hypervisor.
Where is my thinking wrong?

The linux + kvm + qemu combo is a special case.
It's often referred to as a hybrid hypervisor with characteristics of both types.

TL;DR :
if performance matters, go for type 1 or hybrid hypervisor.
Filesystems and drivers are things client OSes care about.

Last edited by Lone_Wolf (2019-03-12 12:36:11)


Multi-init booting with apg Openrc and systemd coexisting
Automounting : not needed, i prefer pmount
Aur helpers : makepkg + my own local repo === rarely need them

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB