Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:37:06 +0200 From: Marko Zec <zec@icir.org> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Cc: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: kernel level virtualisation requirements. Message-ID: <200710171237.07583.zec@icir.org> In-Reply-To: <ff3fev$3fq$1@ger.gmane.org> References: <470E5BFB.4050903@elischer.org> <20071016075255.GG61822@webcom.it> <ff3fev$3fq$1@ger.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 17 October 2007 00:54:21 you wrote: > Andrea Campi wrote: > > In para-virtualization you modify the kernel source in such a way > > that accesses to the hardware are instead translated into calls to > > the hypervisor. This means you could simply write device drivers > > for a "virtual network adapter", "virtual disk" etc. What this buys > > you is that you can have a full kernel (say 6.x) running as a > > hypervisor, and trimmed down kernels (say 7.x and several 6.x > > versions), compiled with only the virtual device drivers, running > > as additional VMs. > > > > WDYT? > > Well Xen does paravirtulization like you described (and I agree > something like that is more flexible then jails, if supported by > other operating systems). 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... Cheers, Marko > 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/ ?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200710171237.07583.zec>