However, the difference is that a type-1 hypervisor should really be integrated in with the OS in a way that provides it more direct access to the hardware, whereas a type-2 hypervisor is an application that just sits on top of the OS. From the standpoint of someone using it, it might not seem different. If you integrate a type-2 hypervisor with an OS, then the bundle of the OS and hypervisor basically becomes a type-1 hypervisor.ĮDIT: To clarify the last sentence, it's not really a type-1 hypervisor if you just have an installer that installs a Linux version with VirtualBox bundled, nor is Hyper-V type-2 just because you have to install some components that aren't there by default. It's basically just that a type-1 hypervisor is an OS that you install that has the ability to run VMs out of the box, and a type-2 is an application you install on top of an OS to run VMs. There's not necessarily a difference in functionality or features, or the way they look.

A type-2 is a hypervisor where it's an application installed on top of a different OS.īoth types will have some kind of an app or GUI that configures and controls them. I’d be very interested in running the same systems through other benchmarks like iperf and others. I think you might be misunderstanding what the difference is between type-1 and type-2 hypervisors, though I'm not sure what the misunderstanding is.Ī type-1 hypervisor is one where the hypervisor is built into the OS. Hyper-V is second best if you have it available as an OS feature Virtualbox is a last resort Windows Subsystem on Linux barely cuts it and in fact fails at running parallel processes (I think fork failed).

Hyper v vs virtualbox benchmark