From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Oct 17 11:04:14 2007
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43D1416A419
	for <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>; Wed, 17 Oct 2007 11:04:14 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from freebsd-arch@m.gmane.org)
Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F248313C448
	for <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>; Wed, 17 Oct 2007 11:04:13 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from freebsd-arch@m.gmane.org)
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Ii6h9-0005t9-Ni
	for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Wed, 17 Oct 2007 11:04:11 +0000
Received: from lara.cc.fer.hr ([161.53.72.113])
	by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
	id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>; Wed, 17 Oct 2007 11:04:11 +0000
Received: from ivoras by lara.cc.fer.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
	id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>; Wed, 17 Oct 2007 11:04:11 +0000
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:04:57 +0200
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <ff4q73$c1c$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <470E5BFB.4050903@elischer.org>
	<20071016075255.GG61822@webcom.it>	<ff3fev$3fq$1@ger.gmane.org>
	<200710171237.07583.zec@icir.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lara.cc.fer.hr
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070801)
In-Reply-To: <200710171237.07583.zec@icir.org>
Sender: news <news@ger.gmane.org>
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 <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 11:04:14 -0000

Marko Zec wrote:

> Actually, resource virtualization done at kernel level could offer great 
> degree of flexiblity.  Ideally, a modular virtualization framework 
> would allow one to virtualize only the resources one needs, for example 
> having a single process talking to several isolated networking domains, 
> or having several processes bound to the same slot in a proportional 
> share CPU scheduler, sharing or not sharing the same filesystem 
> hierarchy etc.  I think the thrust of this thread was in tackling 
> people's imagination on how such a modular virtualization framework 
> should look like, and which capabilities it should offer and which not.  
> I.e. not get carried away in comparing kernel-level virtualization in 
> general against Xen and alike, which are undoubtably very useful tools 
> which have secured their place under the sun...

Of course, we speak about different concepts of "flexibility" - in case
one wants to run FreeBSD and only FreeBSD then jail-like systems
(kernel-level virtualization) are better for almost all circumstances
then a heavy-weight kernel-on-top-of-a-kernel approach.