Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 01:49:26 +0200 From: Fabio Checconi <fabio@freebsd.org> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kernel level virtualisation requirements. Message-ID: <20071016234926.GF1243@gandalf.sssup.it> In-Reply-To: <ff3fev$3fq$1@ger.gmane.org> References: <470E5BFB.4050903@elischer.org> <470FD0DC.5080503@gritton.org> <20071013004539.R1002@10.0.0.1> <47107996.5090607@elischer.org> <2849CFD3-A747-4202-B2CB-759D3783C0B2@FreeBSD.org> <47140146.2020806@elischer.org> <20071016075255.GG61822@webcom.it> <ff3fev$3fq$1@ger.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> > Date: Wed, Oct 17, 2007 12:54:21AM +0200 > > Andrea Campi wrote: > > > In para-virtualization you modify the kernel source in such a way that [...] > > Well Xen does paravirtulization like you described (and I agree > something like that is more flexible then jails, if supported by other > operating systems). DragonflyBSD has its own flavor of virtualization > similar to user mode Linux, but it has greatly diverged from FreeBSD so > it't probably not trivially portable. > > Or do you mean something like this: > http://feanor.sssup.it/~fabio/freebsd/lkvm/ ? > The version of kvm ported to FreeBSD has no paravirtualization support. Paravirtualization is, as far as I know, still an experimental feature on Linux, not present in the mainline tree. I am not aware of FreeBSD support for the kvm hypercalls that are being introduced in the kvm experimental trees. By now kvm is really just a full virtualization solution.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071016234926.GF1243>