Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 02:18:55 +0200 From: Marko Zec <zec@tel.fer.hr> To: Jordan K Hubbard <jkh@queasyweasel.com> Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Network stack cloning / virtualization patches Message-ID: <3ED15D6F.1BF1BB37@tel.fer.hr> References: <DBBCC508-8F0A-11D7-A011-000393BB9222@queasyweasel.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jordan K Hubbard wrote: > Have you thought about > extending this to the point to where each independent instance truly is > a functionally independent kernel instance, similar to some of the > "virtual Linux" work done by/for IBM so that you can run n "linuxes" > on a single 3090 processor? My model is much more in line with the pseudo-VM concepts, like the jail is (it actually reuses much of the jail code for userland separation between processes running in different virtual images). However, I'm only virtualizing certain resources _within_ the kernel, albeit the entire network stack is quite a big piece of resource :-) This is fundamentally different from what IBM does, as they virtualize the entire hardware and run fully contained OS images within the VMs. Each approach has its advantages and drawbacks, of course. IMO, the main benefits of the "light" VM model lie in near zero performance penalty compared to the unmodified OS, as well as in efficient usage of hardware resources (memory, filesystems). On the other hand, IBM's true VM shines in isolation between the VMs, but lags in efficiency... So, I'd certainly like to virtualize more system resources and make virtual images as independent from each other as possible, but they will always have to share the same kernel. Cheers, Marko
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3ED15D6F.1BF1BB37>