Out of interest what games are you running that don’t need GPU performance? Basically any modern 3D game needs a GPU to run well.
I think you misunderstood me. I said “Every game I have attempted to run has just worked and they seem to run just as good as they did in Windows, so I guess I’m lucky I don’t need to really worry about dual bootingor VM’s”
The games I play do need GPU performance. Cyberpunk 2077, Red Dead Redemption 2, No Mans Sky, The Outer Worlds etc. I’m not running them in a VM, I’m running them through Steam or Heroic Games Launcher.
I don’t understand why you think that would be less complicated than a high tech solution like virtualization.
Because once you have everything set up properly, all you would need to do to play a game that you couldn’t play in Linux is fire up the VM and play it. In a dual boot situation you would have to reboot your computer into a whole different OS and then play the game. It wouldn’t be a massive difference, but it would be more convenient. Plus it would be contained so there would be no way for it to mess with your bootloader or whatever. Clearly it’s more complicated that I had originally thought.
KVM is special because it’s a hypervisor running in the same CPU ring and privilege level as the full Linux kernel. It’s like if a Type-1 hypervisor ran at the same time as a normal OS in the same space. This means it behaves somewhat like a Type-1 and somewhat like a Type-2. It’s bare metal just like a Type-1 would be, but has to share resources with Linux processes and other parts of the Linux kernel.
Ok, now you got me curious. What is the distinction between that and how I originally described it?
“From what I understood, it runs on ‘Bare Metal’ which means that it theoretically should preform just as well as if you booted into it, with the only overhead being the (Linux OS) which is minimal.”
From my admittedly laymen understanding, it kinda seems like what you said and how I described it are pretty much the same thing.
An OS or a hypervisor can run in bare metal. If I have Windows running in KVM, KVM is running bare metal but Windows isn’t. Ditto with ESXi or Hyper-V. In the case of your setup Linux and KVM are both bare metal, but Windows isn’t. KVM, ESXi, Xen are always running a privilege level above their guests. Does this make sense?
The difference between KVM and the more conventional Type 1 hypervisors is that a conventional type 1 can’t run along side a normal kernel. So with Linux and KVM both Linux and KVM are baremetal. With Linux and Xen, only Xen is baremetal, and Linux is a guest. Likewise if you have something like Hyper-V or WSL2 on Windows, then Windows is actually running as a guest OS, as is Linux or any other guests you have. Only Hyper-V is running natively. Some people still consider KVM a Type 1, since it is running bare metal itself, but you can see how it’s different to the model other Type 1 hypervisors use. It’s a naming issue in that regard.
It might help to read up more on virtualization technology. I am sure someone can explain this stuff better than me.
I think you misunderstood me. I said “Every game I have attempted to run has just worked and they seem to run just as good as they did in Windows, so I guess I’m lucky I don’t need to really worry about dual booting or VM’s”
The games I play do need GPU performance. Cyberpunk 2077, Red Dead Redemption 2, No Mans Sky, The Outer Worlds etc. I’m not running them in a VM, I’m running them through Steam or Heroic Games Launcher.
Because once you have everything set up properly, all you would need to do to play a game that you couldn’t play in Linux is fire up the VM and play it. In a dual boot situation you would have to reboot your computer into a whole different OS and then play the game. It wouldn’t be a massive difference, but it would be more convenient. Plus it would be contained so there would be no way for it to mess with your bootloader or whatever. Clearly it’s more complicated that I had originally thought.
Ok, now you got me curious. What is the distinction between that and how I originally described it?
From my admittedly laymen understanding, it kinda seems like what you said and how I described it are pretty much the same thing.
An OS or a hypervisor can run in bare metal. If I have Windows running in KVM, KVM is running bare metal but Windows isn’t. Ditto with ESXi or Hyper-V. In the case of your setup Linux and KVM are both bare metal, but Windows isn’t. KVM, ESXi, Xen are always running a privilege level above their guests. Does this make sense?
The difference between KVM and the more conventional Type 1 hypervisors is that a conventional type 1 can’t run along side a normal kernel. So with Linux and KVM both Linux and KVM are baremetal. With Linux and Xen, only Xen is baremetal, and Linux is a guest. Likewise if you have something like Hyper-V or WSL2 on Windows, then Windows is actually running as a guest OS, as is Linux or any other guests you have. Only Hyper-V is running natively. Some people still consider KVM a Type 1, since it is running bare metal itself, but you can see how it’s different to the model other Type 1 hypervisors use. It’s a naming issue in that regard.
It might help to read up more on virtualization technology. I am sure someone can explain this stuff better than me.