From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat May 23 01:24:01 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D220B106566C; Sat, 23 May 2009 01:24:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from js@alien8.de) Received: from mail.skyhub.de (cl-3117.ham-01.de.sixxs.net [IPv6:2001:6f8:900:c2c::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45E5A8FC12; Sat, 23 May 2009 01:24:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from js@alien8.de) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.skyhub.de (SuperMail on ZX Spectrum 128k) with ESMTP id 349F11D9CFC; Sat, 23 May 2009 03:23:59 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=alien8.de; s=alien8; t=1243041839; bh=2n/VkNwwzG1NMoSnbnBr01vWZBEPMWOhR1lacuMnppI=; h=To:Cc:Subject:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=PBWt4Ne4zhJMU8IaibQASj33MZKt2AueB4laX ubF53RZL0lkEELOnaC41o4Kpsmt1apr0QzBDEhpSzCiXc3fEWqBoD/P8LAM1yrbu29i Vr6ibUiHUU8wil9PCUaHOqTFoX/9uzkEu52xMzthcLpXPyQInP8YrECF5cQBJolhAvc = X-Virus-Scanned: Nedap ESD1 at mail.skyhub.de Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (door.skyhub.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id H3ey5ZAF72fm; Sat, 23 May 2009 03:23:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from tabernacle.localnet (cl-76.dus-01.de.sixxs.net [IPv6:2a01:198:200:4b::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.skyhub.de (SuperMail on ZX Spectrum 128k) with ESMTPSA id 86A681D9CE7; Sat, 23 May 2009 03:23:58 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=alien8.de; s=alien8; t=1243041839; bh=2n/VkNwwzG1NMoSnbnBr01vWZBEPMWOhR1lacuMnppI=; h=To:Cc:Subject:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=PBWt4Ne4zhJMU8IaibQASj33MZKt2AueB4laX ubF53RZL0lkEELOnaC41o4Kpsmt1apr0QzBDEhpSzCiXc3fEWqBoD/P8LAM1yrbu29i Vr6ibUiHUU8wil9PCUaHOqTFoX/9uzkEu52xMzthcLpXPyQInP8YrECF5cQBJolhAvc = To: Kip Macy References: <20090521215221.GA98253@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <87pre1nvl9.fsf@tabernacle.lan> <3c1674c90905221246x6323cd25w99664334c6a6a2c4@mail.gmail.com> X-Archive: encrypt From: Julian Stecklina X-Hashcash: 1:23:090523:kmacy@freebsd.org::qb6TbMwRT4GY+8oG:00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000wQxv X-Hashcash: 1:23:090523:freebsd-current@freebsd.org::EHGjR14AIpUfmsuO:00000000000000000000000000000000014mzw X-Hashcash: 1:23:090523:freebsd-xen@freebsd.org::a5DBnYZlCYFmQ6Rj:00000000000000000000000000000000000000dgFB X-Hashcash: 1:23:090523:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org::9yAgXMAOhqAsldAb:00000000000000000000000000000000BVn+ Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 03:23:56 +0200 In-Reply-To: <3c1674c90905221246x6323cd25w99664334c6a6a2c4@mail.gmail.com> (Kip Macy's message of "Fri\, 22 May 2009 12\:46\:20 -0700") Message-ID: <87octk4no3.fsf@tabernacle.lan> User-Agent: Gnus/5.101 (Gnus v5.10.10) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: My FreeBSD-current/Xen install notes X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 01:24:02 -0000 Kip Macy writes: > Based on L4Linux, I believe that the amount of work required for > porting a PV OS is much less than creating a new "personality" for a > microkernel. That said, isn't a hypervisor really a microkernel with > device and virtual memory abstraction API? OS personalities were a promise that was always brought up with microkernels, but never really delivered. Although, L4Linux could be seen as "Linux personality" for L4. The nice thing about microkernels is that they abstract enough of the underlying hardware to be open for a lot of experimenting. I think this is quite nice for student projects. On the microkernel vs. hypervisor topic: L4 has a very nice virtual memory abstraction and you can build device abstraction quite easily on top of it. If you only want paravirtualization, L4 could have delivered that years before Xen did. And actually it did: L4Linux exists for quite some time and I believe that there was also a paper on live migration of L4Linux instances way before Xen did that. IMHO given some commercial support (and some foresight), L4 could have been the better Xen. Regards, -- Julian Stecklina The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the day they start making vacuum cleaners - Ernst Jan Plugge