Fwd: Re: More

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Fwd: Re: More

Rebecca Walter
I sent your concerns back to the requestor.  He responds with the following.

----------  Forwarded Message  ----------

Subject: Re: More
Date: Monday 04 June 2007 11:58
From: Marcus Kraft <[hidden email]>
To: Rebecca Walter <[hidden email]>, "Alexey Eremenko" <[hidden email]>

Am Samstag 02 Juni 2007 21:10 schrieben Sie:

Alexey , Rebecca,

:) Thats why we try to get to a clear terminology.

Alexey favors simple terminology like 'host', which I favour too in verbal
communications. However, to provide written documentation and even tables
where we display tested and verified combination (for eg. Novell YES
certification), I feel the need for precise but still technology agnostic
terms.
Xen is a Hybrid Hypervisor/VMM, it needs both hypervisor layer and operating
system to do its job (and IntelVT / AMD-V for fulvirtualization). Sometimes
there is a need to distinguish all of these (hw/vmm/os), and yes, there is a
need to be not bounded to the Xen terminology in hopefully all the documents
we write for product doc, FAQs, product flyers, support bulletins,
certification bulleting, presentations etc ...

'host' and 'virtualization host' will work for most people familiar with
virtualization - however if one states 'virtualization host server' it takes
the physical hardware into account IMHO - sometimes you what to express that
you use a (phys) machine (server) to be the virtualization host. I admit that
Linux term server usually refer to network services, but its also used for
machine providing the server.

Let me add some examples where we would use this terminology, too:
                                virtualzation host server     virtual machine
x86 + Xen                 x86 machine + Xen + OS    OS in VM
IBM POWER               PPC + DLPAR                     OS in VM
IBM System z            mainframe + LPAR + zVM   OS in VM
x86 + KVM                x86 + Linux + KVM             OS in VM
x86 + openVZ           x86 + Linux + openVZ        OS in VM (container)
x86 + VMware ESX    x86 + ESX (incl. OS)            OS in VM
x86 + VMware WS     x86 + Linux + WS                OS in VM

(I left out x86-64 and Itanium to reduced list)

Hope that make things more clear.

Regards Marcus

> ----------  Forwarded Message  ----------
>
> Subject: Re: [opensuse-doc] [STYLE] Virtualization Terminology
> Date: Saturday 02 June 2007 12:01
> From: jdd <[hidden email]>
> To:
> Cc: [hidden email]
>
> Alexey Eremenko wrote:
> > anything, let's as wild as Playstation, for emulation case - usually
> > this would be x86 PC)
>
> usually, not necessarily, gamebox emulators are prosent for age here :-)
>
> good guess to don't forget them :-)
>
> jdd
>
> --
> http://www.dodin.net
> http://gourmandises.orangeblog.fr/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ----------  Forwarded Message  ----------
>
> Subject: Re: [opensuse-doc] [STYLE] Virtualization Terminology
> Date: Saturday 02 June 2007 11:34
> From: "Alexey Eremenko" <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
>
> According to my basic terminology:
> *Host
>
>     Your real computer, on which the emulator/virtualizer software runs.
>
> Host means both your real hardware and the operating system that
> controls that hardware.
> In some cases there can be only hardware without operating system,
> like VMware ESX.
>
> The term "Host" describes both hardware and OS.
>
> This can be devided to:
> *Host Hardware - your real hardware
> *Host Operating System - the operating system that controls that real
>  hardware.
>
> *Guest (also known as VM=Virtual Machine)
>
>     Your emulated computer, virtual machine, or VM for short, this is
> what you are trying to emulate. Your target. It can be the same, or
> very different from your real system.
>
>     For example, your host can be a Pentium III PC, while your guest
> can be a Sony Playstation. Of course, VirtualBox cannot emulate
> Playstations, so look at different software. It's just important that
> you understand those two basic concepts.
>
> -This means both your virtual hardware _and_ an operating system that
> runs on your virtual hardware.
>
> This can be devided to:
> Guest Hardware   - your virtual hardware              (can be
> anything, let's as wild as Playstation, for emulation case - usually
> this would be x86 PC)
> Guest Operating System - your OS, that runs on the virtual hardware.
>    (can be anything, let's as wild as Playstation BIOS - but usually
> this would be Windows or Linux OS)
>
> *Hyperviser/Virtualizer
> Software that does (Full/Para) virtualization.
>
> *Hypercall
> Just like there are system calls, For para-virtual cases there are
> hyper calls. Actually a language between the para-virtualizer
> (hyperviser) and guest.
> Other types of virtualization doesn't use hypercalls.
>
> Your term "virtual machine server" would be confusing. This is because
> the "server" term has usually something to do with networking, while
> virtualization can work nicely without networks, listening TCP ports,
> etc...
> Let's leave the term "server" to the programs that listen to TCP ports.
> Now if I understand you correctly, your term "virtual machine server"
> equals to my term "Host hardware" or "Host".
>
> Additionally, those terms I just described are a LOT shorter than your
> terms, plus they are more accurate.
> It's a lot better to have accurate and short terms at once.
>
> --
> -Alexey Eremenko "Technologov"
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ----------  Forwarded Message  ----------
>
> Subject: Re: [opensuse-doc] [STYLE] Virtualization Terminology
> Date: Saturday 02 June 2007 08:42
> From: jdd <[hidden email]>
> To:
> Cc: [hidden email]
>
> Rebecca Walter wrote:
> >> Virtual machine 1, virtual machine 2 two different (virtualized)
> >> computers guest: Linux, XP, W98, dos, freebsd...
> >
> > there wouldn't be "guest" used here, if I have understood properly.  It
> > would be a virtual machine running whatever OS.
>
> I think the "guest" concept is important, mostly if the host OS and
> the virtual machine OS are the same.
>
> It's difficult to say anytime "openSUSE 10.3 on the host", "openSUSE
> 10.3 on the virtual machine"
>
> in fact, I don't know what make difference between various guests fir
> the virtual machine, but as VMware as Virtual box asks for what guest
> you want at creation time (even is you can change mind afterward)
>
> jdd
>
> --
> http://www.dodin.net
> http://gourmandises.orangeblog.fr/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
> -------------------------------------------------------

--
Mit freundlichen Gruessen / Best regards,

        Marcus Kraft ([hidden email])

--
Marcus Kraft, Product Manager, SUSE Linux Enterprise, Virtualization
fon: +49 911 74053-171 - fax: +49 911 74053-483 - email: [hidden email]
SUSE® Linux Enterprise 10 - Your Linux is ready -
 http://www.novell.com/linux/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB
 16746 (AG Nürnberg)

-------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: Re: More

jdd@dodin.org
Rebecca Walter wrote:

> the physical hardware into account IMHO - sometimes you what to express that
> you use a (phys) machine (server) to be the virtualization host.

true. But why do you add a level of complexity? simply call it "the
physical host"... "serveur" means nothing at all, any machine is a
server at a moment or an an other

> Hope that make things more clear.

as soon as such list is needed, you can be sure the things are not
clear at all for non specialists...

if we keep common sense words, we have "physical computers" and
"virtual computers". each of then can host some OS and need
communication channels between them.

and don't forget than any new application need new vocabulary for
pattent problems, the only simple case being a RFC.

I found no RFC on the subject, only

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_computer

jdd

--
http://www.dodin.net
http://gourmandises.orangeblog.fr/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: Re: More

Rebecca Walter

> true. But why do you add a level of complexity? simply call it "the
> physical host"... "serveur" means nothing at all, any machine is a
> server at a moment or an an other

It is the server for the virtual machines.  I don't see why this should be
more confusing than any of the other servers we talk about regularly.

> and don't forget than any new application need new vocabulary for
> pattent problems, the only simple case being a RFC.

The point here is to use terminology that isn't dependent on a particular
technology--something they can use regardless of what software is used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: Re: More

jdd@dodin.org
Rebecca Walter wrote:

>> and don't forget than any new application need new vocabulary for
>> pattent problems, the only simple case being a RFC.
>
> The point here is to use terminology that isn't dependent on a particular
> technology--something they can use regardless of what software is used.

what I mean is that any new product have it's own vocabulary and that
this add to the complexity without us being able to do anything for
this :-(

jdd


--
http://www.dodin.net
http://gourmandises.orangeblog.fr/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: Re: More

Rebecca Walter
On Wednesday 06 June 2007 09:31, jdd wrote:

> Rebecca Walter wrote:
> >> and don't forget than any new application need new vocabulary for
> >> pattent problems, the only simple case being a RFC.
> >
> > The point here is to use terminology that isn't dependent on a particular
> > technology--something they can use regardless of what software is used.
>
> what I mean is that any new product have it's own vocabulary and that
> this add to the complexity without us being able to do anything for
> this :-(
>

Yes, I agree.  But if we have a terminology we always use with VM situations,
we can put a terminology list in the chapter equating the new tech's terms
with those we use.

These things are always going to be a problem.  Especially when terminology is
often selected by people who are not language experts and don't think about
the nuances of the terms they select.  we just have to do the best we can to
make things clear to the reader.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]