1

I was interested in experimenting with Xen until I discovered that it has to be installed bare metal. Hence, if I have a Linux machine and want to use it to run a Xen hypervisor, I have to install the Xen server/kernel on the machine bare metal, and turn my host Linux into a VM of the Xen server!

I have used VirtualBox a lot before, where VBox sits "on top" of my host OS, allowing me to keep my Linux/Windows/whatever host, and run the hypervisor off of it.

I am wondering: which department does KVM fall into? Is KVM like Xen, where I have to install it bare metal, or can it be installed "on top of" an existing host (Windows/Linux) OS?

4

Please do at least some basic research.

The Wikipedia article on KVM says that it is implemented as a Linux kernel module (and later ported to Illumos), thus mostly type-2 like VirtualBox. But since KVM comes as a standard part of the OS, you could also say it's right in the middle.

(However, you still need to install the user-space tools (qemu -enable-kvm) to use it on Linux.)


Or, as the hypervisor classification page says,

… the distinction between these two types is not necessarily clear. Linux's Kernel-based Virtual Machine (KVM) and FreeBSD's bhyve are kernel modules that effectively convert the host operating system to a type-1 hypervisor.

Nevertheless, since Linux distributions and FreeBSD are still general-purpose operating systems, with other applications competing for VM resources, KVM and bhyve can also be categorized as type-2 hypervisors.

  • Thanks @grawity (+1) - I did not realize KVM was specific to Linux. A quick followup if you don't mind: if Macs are based on FreeBSD, then is KVM available to Macs as a hypervisor option? – smeeb May 13 '15 at 16:09
  • 1
    @smeeb: No. FreeBSD only implemented bhyve (its KVM equivalent) in 2014. While the OS X kernel (but not Mac OS) does have bits and pieces of FreeBSD, they're at least a decade older than that. You could use Parallels or VirtualBox on OS X, though. – grawity May 13 '15 at 16:12
  • Thanks @grawity (+1 again), do you mean that I could use VirtualBox (which I'm familiar with) to spin upa KVM hypervisor, is that what you're implying? – smeeb May 13 '15 at 16:14
  • I'm saying that VirtualBox is a hypervisor; it does not use KVM though, and OS X doesn't have KVM. – grawity May 13 '15 at 16:15

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.