Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:09:13 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: Alexander Sack <pisymbol@gmail.com>, jgordeev@dir.bg, "Andrey V. Elsukov" <bu7cher@yandex.ru>, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: vkernel & GSoC, some questions Message-ID: <47DEDDF9.7010200@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <200803172016.m2HKGfjA020263@apollo.backplane.com> References: <20080316122108.S44049@fledge.watson.org> <E1JatyK-000FfY-00.shmukler-mail-ru@f8.mail.ru> <200803162313.m2GNDbvl009550@apollo.backplane.com> <3c0b01820803171243k5eb6abd3y1e1c44694c6be0f6@mail.gmail.com> <200803172016.m2HKGfjA020263@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matthew Dillon wrote: > In all three cases the emulated hardware -- disk and network basically, > devolves down into calling read() or write() or the real-kernel > equivalent. A hypervisor has the most work to do since it is trying to > emulate a hardware interface (adding another layer). XEN has less work > to do as it is really not trying to emulate hardware. A vkernel has > even less work to do because it is running as a userland program and can > simply make the appropriate system call to implement the back-end. And jails and similar have the absolute minimum.. at the cost of making a single accessible point of failure (the one kernel).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47DEDDF9.7010200>