22 ms·

> Proxmox isn't a hypervisor KVM is in the kernel, and I specifically called out KVM. If the point you are trying to make is that KVM is the hypervisor, then Q

by ar_lan 3y ago

> Proxmox isn't a hypervisor KVM is in the kernel, and I specifically called out KVM. If the point you are trying to make is that KVM is the hypervisor, then Qubes is also not a hypervisor because it uses Xen. But this seems like a very strange distinction to make to me unless you are specifically trying to peer into the inner-workings. At that point you'd probably be saying ESXi is "not a hypervisor" because it has to defer the actual VM deployment to vmkernel. I don't know of an OS without a kernel.

_joel 3y ago
Proxmox can use a hypervisor, KVM, or manage containers. It's not a hypervisor. Xen is also hypervisor. Saying proxmox is a hypervisor is like saying virt-manager is a hypervisor.
- ar_lan 3y ago
  You're just debating semantics, debatably incorreectly, and for no reason. KVM is not a type-2 hypervisor in this case - Proxmox can be hosted on bare metal and use KVM natively. > Saying proxmox is a hypervisor is like saying virt-manager is a hypervisor. This is... just wrong? Proxmox is much more equivalent to ESXi than to a UI application. -- To grante you the tiniest bit of good faith, I would wager that you and I are two heads of this specific coin. An excerpt from Wikipedia on the matter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervisor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervisor): > The distinction between these two types is not always clear. For instance, KVM and bhyve are kernel modules[6] that effectively convert the host operating system to a type-1 hypervisor.[7] At the same time, since Linux distributions and FreeBSD are still general-purpose operating systems, with applications competing with each other for VM resources, KVM and bhyve can also be categorized as type-2 hypervisors.[8] You seem very concerned that KVM (and thus Proxmox) cannot be considered a Type 1 Hypervisor. I disagree. But if your assertion is that Proxmox cannot natively deploy VMs... then I have no idea what to tell you. You're blatantly wrong. Just try it.
  - _joel 3y ago
    Just try it? Didn't want to have a pissing contest, but if you will. I've have, since late 2000's and used it to deploy production deployments for eden.sahanafoundation.org in Haiti, Chengdu and other places, using Proxmox and KVM. I've also built public and private clouds using OpenNebula and OpenStack (using KVM/libvirt). I'm also vmware certified (or was, back in late 2000's, when working for a prominent UK ISP). It's a management framework, it doesn't do virtualisation itself, it uses the libvirt framework. I can use the same kvm hypervisor by using qemu-kvm (or virt-manager, which uses the same stuff). Again it's just a management layer.
    - ar_lan 3y ago
      I’m matching your energy. Your original comment came in just to say “you’re wrong” as a weird, nitpicky contrarian - so I’m going to fight you on that. You’re trying to make the distinction KVM is separate - I’m saying KVM is a part of Proxmox making them functionally one and the same. If you want to be very precise - KVM is the hypervisor. It just so happens to also be a part of the kernel! And Proxmox can also be run on bare metal hardware meaning - it can deploy and manage VMs with access to direct hardware management. As I already gave a reference to - this seems to be a common point people hit disagreement on, like we are precisely having at this moment. Your nitpick is a muddying of waters in an attempt to “be superior” (and attaching your LinkedIn is pretty odd). If you’re to be consistent, you’d also be saying ESXi is not a hypervisor - you’d say only vmkernel is. On a tight technicality this might be true, but it’s such a nitpick that unless you’re actively debugging in that layer of the stack the distinction is worthless. I don’t think you and I will see eye to eye. You are so hyper focused on nitpicking a tiny definition that I’m not willing to concede on.
      - _joel 3y ago
        Proxmox doesn't do the virtualisation, that's KVM. That's the hypervisor. I'm not sure why you find this so difficult to understand. You told me to, "Try It". I have. Many times, I told you about them and you despite that you think I'm attaching a linked in. I'm answering the thing you told me. Not sure what 'energy' you're going on about, if you reread this you might realise you're the one being a bit obtuse. You're also making up stuff I might potentially say, whilst also admitting I'm probably right, which says a lot about you imho. Maybe work from the things people say, not what you think they say in your head. I hope you find inner peace, but for reference, proxmox is a management layer using libvirt, which interacts with the hypervisor, KVM. Jeez...

by ar_lan 3y ago

_joel 3y ago

Proxmox can use a hypervisor, KVM, or manage containers. It's not a hypervisor. Xen is also hypervisor. Saying proxmox is a hypervisor is like saying virt-manager is a hypervisor.

ar_lan 3y ago
You're just debating semantics, debatably incorreectly, and for no reason. KVM is not a type-2 hypervisor in this case - Proxmox can be hosted on bare metal and use KVM natively. > Saying proxmox is a hypervisor is like saying virt-manager is a hypervisor. This is... just wrong? Proxmox is much more equivalent to ESXi than to a UI application. -- To grante you the tiniest bit of good faith, I would wager that you and I are two heads of this specific coin. An excerpt from Wikipedia on the matter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervisor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervisor): > The distinction between these two types is not always clear. For instance, KVM and bhyve are kernel modules[6] that effectively convert the host operating system to a type-1 hypervisor.[7] At the same time, since Linux distributions and FreeBSD are still general-purpose operating systems, with applications competing with each other for VM resources, KVM and bhyve can also be categorized as type-2 hypervisors.[8] You seem very concerned that KVM (and thus Proxmox) cannot be considered a Type 1 Hypervisor. I disagree. But if your assertion is that Proxmox cannot natively deploy VMs... then I have no idea what to tell you. You're blatantly wrong. Just try it.
- _joel 3y ago
  Just try it? Didn't want to have a pissing contest, but if you will. I've have, since late 2000's and used it to deploy production deployments for eden.sahanafoundation.org in Haiti, Chengdu and other places, using Proxmox and KVM. I've also built public and private clouds using OpenNebula and OpenStack (using KVM/libvirt). I'm also vmware certified (or was, back in late 2000's, when working for a prominent UK ISP). It's a management framework, it doesn't do virtualisation itself, it uses the libvirt framework. I can use the same kvm hypervisor by using qemu-kvm (or virt-manager, which uses the same stuff). Again it's just a management layer.
  - ar_lan 3y ago
    I’m matching your energy. Your original comment came in just to say “you’re wrong” as a weird, nitpicky contrarian - so I’m going to fight you on that. You’re trying to make the distinction KVM is separate - I’m saying KVM is a part of Proxmox making them functionally one and the same. If you want to be very precise - KVM is the hypervisor. It just so happens to also be a part of the kernel! And Proxmox can also be run on bare metal hardware meaning - it can deploy and manage VMs with access to direct hardware management. As I already gave a reference to - this seems to be a common point people hit disagreement on, like we are precisely having at this moment. Your nitpick is a muddying of waters in an attempt to “be superior” (and attaching your LinkedIn is pretty odd). If you’re to be consistent, you’d also be saying ESXi is not a hypervisor - you’d say only vmkernel is. On a tight technicality this might be true, but it’s such a nitpick that unless you’re actively debugging in that layer of the stack the distinction is worthless. I don’t think you and I will see eye to eye. You are so hyper focused on nitpicking a tiny definition that I’m not willing to concede on.
    - _joel 3y ago
      Proxmox doesn't do the virtualisation, that's KVM. That's the hypervisor. I'm not sure why you find this so difficult to understand. You told me to, "Try It". I have. Many times, I told you about them and you despite that you think I'm attaching a linked in. I'm answering the thing you told me. Not sure what 'energy' you're going on about, if you reread this you might realise you're the one being a bit obtuse. You're also making up stuff I might potentially say, whilst also admitting I'm probably right, which says a lot about you imho. Maybe work from the things people say, not what you think they say in your head. I hope you find inner peace, but for reference, proxmox is a management layer using libvirt, which interacts with the hypervisor, KVM. Jeez...