Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 03:46:58 +0600 From: Max Khon <fjoe@iclub.nsu.ru> To: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: My planned work on networking stack (vimage) Message-ID: <20040302214658.GD42471@iclub.nsu.ru> In-Reply-To: <20040302214022.GC42471@iclub.nsu.ru> References: <4043B6BA.B847F081@freebsd.org> <00d301c40089$8a035410$c000000a@jd2400> <4044F8E1.F10CFD37@freebsd.org> <20040302214022.GC42471@iclub.nsu.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello! On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 03:40:22AM +0600, Max Khon wrote: > > The patch set is pretty extensive and intrusive and only for 4.x. Adding > > locking for 5.x would be a pretty nice challenge as well and not easy to > > get right for all cases. > > > > > This is one thing that I would like to use, without patching systems. But > > > then thats just my 'wish list' opinion of it. > > > > I think is makes more sense to get something like userland BSD. > > Userland BSD might need too many resources. > Think of hosting providers who run hundreds or thousands of virtual hosts > in a jail. Please take a look at commercial solutions like FreeVPS by H-Sphere > or Virtuozzo by SWSoft. I might add that having userland BSD is very useful feature. But from my experience with UML (User Mode Linux) I can say that it hardly can be useful for anything except development (kernel debugging, userland development for different kernel version etc.). /fjoe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040302214658.GD42471>