|WikiProject Computing||(Rated Start-class)|
This topic is referenced in a few places, and so it clearly needs an article. It is not quite clear (to me) that this term is universally understood or used as such; this page is thus probably more of a sub-article to virtualization than a legitimate stand-alone term. However it is used in enough places that at least it needs a link target!
This description is also somewhat CP/CMS centric (for obvious reasons). Other examples of full virtualization would be a good addition. It could probably use some rewording and clarifying as well but I thought I needed to get something out here so the links would turn blue. Trevor Hanson 02:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
this entry is vmware specific without mentioning i.e. xen technology and thus does not offer an impartial view on the subject, needs enhancement and some links to other recent technologies 18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
After reading the definition of "full virtualization" in this article, it seems to be what usually is meant by strict/complete/instrinsic compatibility of a VM (according to Smith/Nair's "Virtual Machines"): every behaviour of a real system has to be emulated exactly, such that there is no way for a guest to detect that it is running in a VM. Another term is "complete transparency". These terms definitely should be mentioned here.
Further, "Similarly, full virtualization was not quite possible with the x86 platform ..." makes no sense. Any kind of virtualization can be implemented in software. If it's getting slow, correct the emulation of time for the guest. Joe0815 (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- The thing is that despite this being sourced almost entirely from VMware's taxonomy document (which isn't without some traction in literature), the examples are actually incorrect, as full virtualization doesn't require hardware assist according to VMware. Also, you can detect VMware and any current x86 hardware supervisor without much difficulty. There's no such thing as complete transparency. It might be more so on IBM's mainframes, but I don't know enough to comment on that. Someone not using his real name (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Usage of the Term "Reflected"
It would seem that the term "reflected" as it appears in the following sentence,
"Full virtualization requires that every salient feature of the hardware be reflected into one of several virtual machines – including the full instruction set, input/output operations, interrupts, memory access, and whatever other elements are used by the software that runs on the bare machine, and that is intended to run in a virtual machine.",
is incorrect, or at least confusing. "Reflected" is not used in that sentence in a way consistent with its other usages in Wikipedia, or with its definition as stated in Wikipedia. Perhaps a better term would be "realized", "emulated" or "re-presented"? (Erenoh (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC))