Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:24:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Max Khon <fjoe@iclub.nsu.ru> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Jailed sysvipc implementation. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0306251624010.3793-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20030625232045.GB92939@iclub.nsu.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Max Khon wrote: > hi, there! > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 06:52:33PM +0400, Dmitry Sivachenko wrote: > > > Yes, that is exactly what I want. > > This is similar to separate IP stack for each jail: this is more powerful > > solution, but more expensive (uses more kernel memory). > > > > Jail is not a true virtual machine. > > Let's keep it a *light* virtual machine replacement, with single IP stack, > > one memory zones for all jails and host, etc. > > btw I know of two projects whose goal is IP stack virtualization for jail. > Virtual IP stack (as well as virtualized sysvipc with separate > memory zones) can be quite useful. Can provide two solutions? > > - with shared memory zone (for those who want "light" version) > - with separate memory zones (for people who want to keep > sysvipc fully separated, i.e. one user can't exhaust all sysvipc resources > and make sysvipc unusable for second user) Is either of these projects Marco Zec's project? > > /fjoe > > _______________________________________________ > 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" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0306251624010.3793-100000>