Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 00:53:58 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> Cc: Marko Zec <zec@freebsd.org>, arch@freebsd.org, James Gritton <jamie@gritton.org> Subject: Re: kernel level virtualisation requirements. Message-ID: <47107996.5090607@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20071013004539.R1002@10.0.0.1> References: <470E5BFB.4050903@elischer.org> <470FD0DC.5080503@gritton.org> <20071013004539.R1002@10.0.0.1>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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" >>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47107996.5090607>