Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:03:24 -0400 From: Vivek Khera <vivek@khera.org> To: FreeBSD Stable List <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Xen Dom0, are we making progress? Message-ID: <870A042E-4BA8-45E3-888A-4661C0B1F9C6@khera.org> In-Reply-To: <ef10de9a0703121334t3af7daecw977dc1916d86ba52@mail.gmail.com> References: <ef10de9a0703121216k1035481bwc7df222a92b44400@mail.gmail.com> <op.to3c4aos8527sy@guido.klop.ws> <ef10de9a0703121334t3af7daecw977dc1916d86ba52@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mar 12, 2007, at 4:34 PM, Nikolas Britton wrote: > What I'd really love to do is split up each service (httpd, postgres, > samba/nfs, ldap/nis, asterisk, etc.) into discrete virtual machines. > It's too much work trying to make them all play nice on one system, This is the purpose for which we (ab)use jails for too. Works great, less filling. Check out ezjail in the ports; it makes very lightweight jails by using nullfs to share the full install tree across multiple jails. This may not be what you want, but it is what I wanted. What you don't get is a private kernel per jail, and some services are not really virtualized like network, and SYSV IPC. And you can only assign one IP per jail. For what I need, Xen is overkill.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?870A042E-4BA8-45E3-888A-4661C0B1F9C6>