On Mon, 7 Jul 2014, Lennart Poettering wrote:
IMHO the main difference is the level of maturity.
z/VM is about 30 years old and has a huge amount of tools for everything you
could imagine. KVM is relatively new and under heavy development.
Furthermore, KVM is bound to the linux kernel, while z/VM is not.
Finally, KVM could theoretically run inside z/VM (thought it doesn't make sense
running KVM on an already virtualized CPU) but not vice-versa.
Kay, my colleague Ihno told me that you were working in the s390 department at
SUSE.
Any opinion about the use of distinguishing z/VM from KVM under s390?
Well, obviously, we should distuingish kvm from some s390-specific
virtualization. I was mostly referring to your original's patch
distinction between "PR/SM" and "z/VM". What is that about?
Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding.
PR/SM is the primary hypervisor that runs on the physical hardware, whereas
z/VM can only run on top of PR/SM, but not below.
Under PR/SM, the system resources can be partitioned first via LPAR and then
by running a z/VM on each LPAR.
However, apart from determining the level of virtualization, I don't see much
practical relevance in making a distinction.
Regards
Thomas
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
