From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 13 07:53:47 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 29B2616A46B for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2007 07:53:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from outL.internet-mail-service.net (outL.internet-mail-service.net [216.240.47.235]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 119A213C480 for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2007 07:53:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from mx0.idiom.com (HELO idiom.com) (216.240.32.160) by out.internet-mail-service.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with ESMTP; Sat, 13 Oct 2007 00:53:45 -0700 X-Client-Authorized: MaGic Cook1e X-Client-Authorized: MaGic Cook1e X-Client-Authorized: MaGic Cook1e X-Client-Authorized: MaGic Cook1e Received: from julian-mac.elischer.org (home.elischer.org [216.240.48.38]) by idiom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C38B1267DE; Sat, 13 Oct 2007 00:53:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <47107996.5090607@elischer.org> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 00:53:58 -0700 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeff Roberson References: <470E5BFB.4050903@elischer.org> <470FD0DC.5080503@gritton.org> <20071013004539.R1002@10.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <20071013004539.R1002@10.0.0.1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Marko Zec , arch@freebsd.org, James Gritton 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 07:53:47 -0000 Jeff Roberson wrote: > 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. Generally, you can run several hundred (or more) virtual jail/vimage style machines. xen/vmware uses so much more resources that you are usually limited to so number like 20. it is possible in a virtual networking setup to have a single process spanning several virtual environments (for example one process with a socket in each of the child universes). It is a valid question, but there is I think a place for both types of partitioning. > > 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" >>