The VMware server products (GSX and ESX) have a scripting API that lets you some basic stuff to/with the guests. Also the configuration files for each guest are plain text and can be edited. I am not suggesting that this comes even close to what is available in zVM, but it is something.
Details canbe got here http://www.vmware.com/support/developer/scripting-API/doc/Scripting_API.pdf On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:22, Richard Troth wrote: > Kris ... you hit it ... > > > As far as I understand VMWare, it is not an emulator, actually, > > but a type of hypervisor that uses many dirty tricks to provide a > > virtual PC on top of a host PC. That's why it runs close to the > > host processor's speed for most basic execution. It's when > > privileges instructions need to be executed that it gets hit > > (the x86 architecture doesn't make virtualization easy). > > So in that sense it has similarities to z/VM. > > Right. > Virtualization means that the "guest" runs on the underlying hardware > until some obvious exception kicks it into emulation mode (such as > a privileged operation, I/O or the like). Just as virtual memory > is physically held in real storage when operated upon, so a virtual > machine is executed by the real CPU, until there is a "fault". > > I was looking for serious thoughts on comparisons and concepts, > not trying to start a z/VM -vs- VMware war. I agree that z/VM is > far beyond VMware in many ways, and that it gets a huge boost > from the hardare. I am keenly aware that VMware gives you a GUI. > (Thanks Rich for chiming in.) I wish that it had a command line. > (I do not know if ESX provides a command line interface.) > > This seems especially relevant to Linux because it runs on both > of these HW platforms. We who know Linux/390, particularly the > VM part of that group, are in-tune with the issues and values > presented by a hypervisor. Now there exists true hypervisor > technology on two very different hardware classes. > > The Internet is one of the most significant contributors to Linux. > It is based on common protocols, where unlike systems communicate > using agreed-upon language. In the case of hypervisors, we would > all be well served by agreed-upon language to describe a "machine". > That's what I'm looking for. > > Given VMwares "host only" networking, something like > > hcp def nic eth1 > > makes conceptual sense. IT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE, as were > the other 'hcp' commands in my note which started this thread. > It's an example of what *could* be, perhaps what *should* be. > The difference between "eth1" syntax and zSeries hex addressing > is one of the issues that should be (ahem) addressed. The labels > and some terms are different, but the ideas are the same. > > Folks, this is a golden opportunity made more viable by Linux. > I'm not making a prediction of things yet to come. > I'm suggesting that we make it happen. Make it happen. > > Thanks. > > -- R;
