Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 10:44:31 +0200 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: Saifi Khan <saifi.khan@twincling.org> Cc: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: My FreeBSD-current/Xen install notes Message-ID: <9bbcef730905190144w3c0242e0j24434f4924702723@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0905190944510.1090@localhost> References: <d763ac660905180553x5c7b3c5bq61acab3d28810a24@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0905190807290.887@localhost> <d763ac660905182052t294e588bu593f1d660aef8b52@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0905190944510.1090@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2009/5/19 Saifi Khan <saifi.khan@twincling.org>: > =C2=A0. is dom0 support something that FreeBSD will target at some > =C2=A0 point in time or would be happy to be domU ? I cannot speak for the developers but at BSDCan it was stated that dom0 would be a large chunk of job that deserves funding. The developers are interested. > =C2=A0. there was some mention of vimage/bitvisor in one of the > =C2=A0 slides (i think on scribd.com). So, is it that jails getting > =C2=A0 extended to support virtualization+containers and thus a > =C2=A0 entirely different approach which does not use Xen ? VIMAGE and jails are OS-level virtualization, orthogonal to Xen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system-level_virtualization > =C2=A0. is it envisaged that a stable NetBSD dom0 implementation > =C2=A0 would then be ported to FreeBSD (maybe) ? Probably not - the systems are too different now.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9bbcef730905190144w3c0242e0j24434f4924702723>