zlacker

>>hugodu+(OP)
Listen people, Firecracker is NOT A HYPERVISOR. A hypervisor runs right on the hardware. KVM is a hypervisor. Firecracker is a process that controls KVM. If you want to call firecracker (and QEMU, when used in conjunction with KVM) a VMM ("virtual machine monitor") I won't complain. But please please please, we need a word for what KVM and Xen are, and "hypervisor" is the best fit. Stop using that word for a user-level process like Firecracker.

>>gwd+j3
> virtual machine monitor

Is it good to think of libvirt as a virtual machine mointor, or is that more "virtual machine management"?

>>Muffin+Qc
I'd love to get a clear explanation of what libvirt actually does. As far as I can tell it's a qemu argument assembler and launcher. For my own use-case, I just launch qemu from systemd unit files:

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/QEMU#With_systemd_service

>>zbroze+Yf
> As far as I can tell it's a qemu argument assembler

Raises a few questions to me:

Can you use KVM/do KVM stuff without QEMU?

Can you do libvirt stuff without QEMU?

Hoping the answers to both aren't useless/"technically, but why would you want to?"

>>Muffin+Ol
> Can you use KVM/do KVM stuff without QEMU?

There are projects doing that althought qemu is the de facto standard and best bet if you don't need to boot your machines in 20ms

> Can you do libvirt stuff without QEMU?

Libvirt have many backends so yes. IIRC it can even manage virtualbox, althought I'm, not sure why anyone would want to

> Hoping the answers to both aren't useless/"technically, but why would you want to?"

...why? Is there a problem kvm+qemu+libvirt doesn't solve for you?