From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 13 07:44:25 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EA9016A419; Sat, 13 Oct 2007 07:44:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Received: from webaccess-cl.virtdom.com (webaccess-cl.virtdom.com [216.240.101.25]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2029013C457; Sat, 13 Oct 2007 07:44:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (cpe-66-91-190-165.hawaii.res.rr.com [66.91.190.165]) (authenticated bits=0) by webaccess-cl.virtdom.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l9D7iBOh033255 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-DSS-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 13 Oct 2007 03:44:16 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 00:46:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Roberson X-X-Sender: jroberson@10.0.0.1 To: James Gritton In-Reply-To: <470FD0DC.5080503@gritton.org> Message-ID: <20071013004539.R1002@10.0.0.1> References: <470E5BFB.4050903@elischer.org> <470FD0DC.5080503@gritton.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: arch@freebsd.org, Marko Zec , Julian Elischer Subject: Re: kernel level virtualisation requirements. X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 07:44:25 -0000 On Fri, 12 Oct 2007, James Gritton wrote: > Julian Elischer wrote: > >> What I'd like to see is a bit of a 'a-la-carte' virtualisation >> ability. > ... >> My question to you, the reader, is: >> what aspects of virtualisation (the appearance of multiple instances >> of some resource) would you like to see in the system? > > Of course everything jail has now, and all the network bits that vimage > offers. > > CPU scheduling, in particular schedule the CPU first by jail, and then > by processes within jail. So the question I have is; why do all of these things instead of vmware/xen/other full virtualization? We can implement these technologies. Specifically, I could do the CPU scheduling. However, why not just fix Xen? There may be a very good answer to this, I just don't know it. Thanks, Jeff > > Filesystem quotas, without the need for each jail to have its own mount > point. > > A lot of things that fall under the IPC category: UNIX domain sockets (part > of > jail chroot I suppose), PTYs, tunnel devices, SYSV IPC, file locks. > > Swap space and resident memory limits. > > > The sysctl mechanism seems a good way to declare jails as having one > capability > or the other. This would alleviate the need to keep updating the jail > structure when someone has a new idea, especially handy since the single > structure makes it very hard to work on more than one new idea at a time. > > - Jamie > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >