From owner-freebsd-virtualization@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 8 11:07:08 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-virtualization@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD5CE10656B7 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 11:07:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from owner-bugmaster@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9A878FC16 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 11:07:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oA8B78rG088254 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 11:07:08 GMT (envelope-from owner-bugmaster@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id oA8B78Ra088252 for freebsd-virtualization@FreeBSD.org; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 11:07:08 GMT (envelope-from owner-bugmaster@FreeBSD.org) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 11:07:08 GMT Message-Id: <201011081107.oA8B78Ra088252@freefall.freebsd.org> X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: gnats set sender to owner-bugmaster@FreeBSD.org using -f From: FreeBSD bugmaster To: freebsd-virtualization@FreeBSD.org Cc: Subject: Current problem reports assigned to freebsd-virtualization@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of various virtualization techniques FreeBSD supports." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 11:07:08 -0000 Note: to view an individual PR, use: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=(number). The following is a listing of current problems submitted by FreeBSD users. These represent problem reports covering all versions including experimental development code and obsolete releases. S Tracker Resp. Description -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- o kern/148155 virtualization[vimage] Kernel panic with PF/IPFilter + VIMAGE kernel s kern/143808 virtualization[pf] pf does not work inside jail 2 problems total. From owner-freebsd-virtualization@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Nov 13 21:15:03 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: virtualization@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44E27106566B for ; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 21:15:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: from out-0.mx.aerioconnect.net (out-0-29.mx.aerioconnect.net [216.240.47.89]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24D208FC0C for ; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 21:15:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from idiom.com (postfix@mx0.idiom.com [216.240.32.160]) by out-0.mx.aerioconnect.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oADKxNkZ019411 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 12:59:23 -0800 X-Client-Authorized: MaGic Cook1e Received: from julian-mac.elischer.org (h-67-100-89-137.snfccasy.static.covad.net [67.100.89.137]) by idiom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1D3B2D6014 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 12:59:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4CDEFC2D.4090908@freebsd.org> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 12:59:25 -0800 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X 10.4; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: virtualization@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.67 on 216.240.47.51 Cc: Subject: limitations on jail style virtualization X-BeenThere: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of various virtualization techniques FreeBSD supports." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 21:15:03 -0000 We discussed this at MeetBSD last week and it woudl seem that the next big hurdle for virtualization would seem to be a good concept to allow jails to have virtual versions of various virtual devices.. for example pf has been virtualized (when IS that patch going to get committed?) but pfsync and pflog use special devices in /dev. similarly bpf uses /dev entries but the way they are used means they are still useful. so what happend when a device that is accessed from within a jail creates a cloning device? should it just turn up in the devfs for that jail? and should it be visible in other jails that happen to be sharing the same /dev? I have no preconceived ideas abot this. Just possibilities. should the cloning code work alongside a new devfs feature that would make 'per jail' entries? i.e. tun0 would be a different device depending on what jail you were in looking at the /dev? Julian From owner-freebsd-virtualization@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Nov 13 21:30:07 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: virtualization@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2DB5106566B; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 21:30:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net) Received: from mail.cksoft.de (mail.cksoft.de [IPv6:2001:4068:10::3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70A0F8FC13; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 21:30:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (amavis.fra.cksoft.de [192.168.74.71]) by mail.cksoft.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8E4241C750; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 22:30:06 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cksoft.de Received: from mail.cksoft.de ([192.168.74.103]) by localhost (amavis.fra.cksoft.de [192.168.74.71]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VUcX3Ux6sb5v; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 22:30:06 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail.cksoft.de (Postfix, from userid 66) id 2D54F41C75A; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 22:30:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net (maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net [10.111.66.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.int.zabbadoz.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 040224448F3; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 21:30:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 21:30:00 +0000 (UTC) From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" X-X-Sender: bz@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net To: Julian Elischer In-Reply-To: <4CDEFC2D.4090908@freebsd.org> Message-ID: <20101113212800.O78896@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> References: <4CDEFC2D.4090908@freebsd.org> X-OpenPGP-Key: 0x14003F198FEFA3E77207EE8D2B58B8F83CCF1842 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: virtualization@freebsd.org Subject: Re: limitations on jail style virtualization X-BeenThere: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of various virtualization techniques FreeBSD supports." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 21:30:07 -0000 On Sat, 13 Nov 2010, Julian Elischer wrote: Hi Julian, > We discussed this at MeetBSD last week and it woudl seem that the next > big hurdle for virtualization would seem to be a good concept to allow > jails to have virtual versions of various virtual devices.. > > for example > > pf has been virtualized (when IS that patch going to get committed?) but > pfsync > and pflog use special devices in /dev. > > similarly bpf uses /dev entries but the way they are used means they are > still useful. > > so what happend when a device that is accessed from within a jail creates a > cloning device? > should it just turn up in the devfs for that jail? > and should it be visible in other jails that happen to be sharing the same > /dev? > > > I have no preconceived ideas abot this. Just possibilities. > > should the cloning code work alongside a new devfs feature that would make > 'per jail' entries? i.e. tun0 would be a different device depending on what > jail > you were in looking at the /dev? For a discussion summary that sounds sparse unless it was only a short brainstorming;-) Can you please elaborate on the "we" and other "use cases" as this really sounds like a per-interface decision to me and there might be work in progress from multiple people already. /bz -- Bjoern A. Zeeb Welcome a new stage of life. Going to jail sucks -- All my daemons like it! http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/jails.html From owner-freebsd-virtualization@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Nov 13 22:09:28 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: virtualization@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCF231065675 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 22:09:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: from out-0.mx.aerioconnect.net (out-0-30.mx.aerioconnect.net [216.240.47.90]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE84F8FC24 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 22:09:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from idiom.com (postfix@mx0.idiom.com [216.240.32.160]) by out-0.mx.aerioconnect.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oADM9RNR026888; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 14:09:27 -0800 X-Client-Authorized: MaGic Cook1e X-Client-Authorized: MaGic Cook1e Received: from julian-mac.elischer.org (h-67-100-89-137.snfccasy.static.covad.net [67.100.89.137]) by idiom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9867E2D6011; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 14:09:26 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4CDF0C99.5080201@freebsd.org> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 14:09:29 -0800 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X 10.4; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" References: <4CDEFC2D.4090908@freebsd.org> <20101113212800.O78896@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> In-Reply-To: <20101113212800.O78896@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.67 on 216.240.47.51 Cc: virtualization@freebsd.org Subject: Re: limitations on jail style virtualization X-BeenThere: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of various virtualization techniques FreeBSD supports." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 22:09:28 -0000 On 11/13/10 1:30 PM, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > On Sat, 13 Nov 2010, Julian Elischer wrote: > > Hi Julian, > >> We discussed this at MeetBSD last week and it woudl seem that the next >> big hurdle for virtualization would seem to be a good concept to allow >> jails to have virtual versions of various virtual devices.. >> >> for example >> >> pf has been virtualized (when IS that patch going to get >> committed?) but pfsync >> and pflog use special devices in /dev. >> >> similarly bpf uses /dev entries but the way they are used means >> they are still useful. >> >> so what happend when a device that is accessed from within a jail >> creates a cloning device? >> should it just turn up in the devfs for that jail? >> and should it be visible in other jails that happen to be sharing >> the same /dev? >> >> >> I have no preconceived ideas abot this. Just possibilities. >> >> should the cloning code work alongside a new devfs feature that >> would make >> 'per jail' entries? i.e. tun0 would be a different device >> depending on what jail >> you were in looking at the /dev? > > > For a discussion summary that sounds sparse unless it was only a short > brainstorming;-) Can you please elaborate on the "we" and other "use > cases" as this really sounds like a per-interface decision to me and > there might be work in progress from multiple people already. It was only a short discussion among "non developers" during a short breakout session. the session was "what is this VIMAGE/jails thing"? and was not a dev-summit meeting but an "introduction to vimage" for end users. During the discussion people were asking questions that they had. Some of the questions I could answer well but others resulted in discussions that ended up with things like, "we you could do that but that would require that you had a different /dev/pfsync for each jail, and we have no way to do that yet". I promised the group that after the meeting I would bring up the topic with other interested developers... so here we are.. > > /bz > From owner-freebsd-virtualization@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Nov 13 22:13:26 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: virtualization@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 776E91065673 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 22:13:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: from out-0.mx.aerioconnect.net (out-0-30.mx.aerioconnect.net [216.240.47.90]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 583498FC1B for ; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 22:13:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from idiom.com (postfix@mx0.idiom.com [216.240.32.160]) by out-0.mx.aerioconnect.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oADMDP41027291; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 14:13:25 -0800 X-Client-Authorized: MaGic Cook1e X-Client-Authorized: MaGic Cook1e Received: from julian-mac.elischer.org (h-67-100-89-137.snfccasy.static.covad.net [67.100.89.137]) by idiom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A55A2D6013; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 14:13:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4CDF0D87.70700@freebsd.org> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 14:13:27 -0800 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X 10.4; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brandon Gooch References: <4CDEFC2D.4090908@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.67 on 216.240.47.51 Cc: virtualization@freebsd.org Subject: Re: limitations on jail style virtualization X-BeenThere: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of various virtualization techniques FreeBSD supports." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 22:13:26 -0000 On 11/13/10 1:55 PM, Brandon Gooch wrote: > On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Julian Elischer wrote: > > Was this brought up in any of the discussions? > > http://www.7he.at/freebsd/vps/ no it was not brought up.. it was an unofficial non-planned discussion that errupted pretty much spontaneously an a couple of couches so it was not prepared in advance.. Since I don't know much about that project I didn't bring it up. However I should take the time to read it.. thanks for bringing it up! > I'm not sure if the VPS project pertains directly to what you're > talking about, but perhaps some of the code or ideas from the project > might? > > Even if it doesn't, it's still an exciting project that adds a ton of > value to FreeBSD's light-weight virtualization strategy. What do think > about the VPS concept in relation to the current virtualization effort > being put in to jails? It seems to me that recent efforts at > virtualizing kernel-level objects makes VPS the future of FreeBSD's > virtualization, leaving jails as a great way to isolate > applications... it the approaches are compatible I see no reason to not combine but I'll know more when I have read it. > -Brandon > From owner-freebsd-virtualization@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Nov 13 22:20:56 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: virtualization@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C63F106566C for ; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 22:20:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jamesbrandongooch@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wy0-f182.google.com (mail-wy0-f182.google.com [74.125.82.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C63C68FC13 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 22:20:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wyb36 with SMTP id 36so1252098wyb.13 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 14:20:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=NokEMuhcCArRHPd/Q5edyHhxkaOrB1NYN4MTz/omWR0=; b=KSRn+1ZDrMxohWX1SuBhx6XPmpKGCfqQvLBjkBjXgYssL9rHyus1vbiuHISP1fsE0U ZA7umPuaxNSTtjzOEkXzLx+qhaFMs0WxPHpLYtaG3pGnjlY7nuiUb2yyoiSgWjk+T9ye z9RV+F+GwBRhVi02nxK881ACtoOpWNqYmMZXY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=YKNpePNvWH+lr00LXkEQYicVZUvbjuTaApcNMvtKj4K9E6ArtyfCC4OkJVWECuoO3C cBQlgY438NFyCp6xzjhuUWI8s+y9aWnghljhf8fUm4v5sjKo7lj65SSUX+GJGtaSG4ou BP9i624F0rzST+mRq/KM97onlfLYczMHd7V08= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.171.75 with SMTP id q53mr3413873wel.74.1289685343159; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 13:55:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.12.80 with HTTP; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 13:55:43 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4CDEFC2D.4090908@freebsd.org> References: <4CDEFC2D.4090908@freebsd.org> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 15:55:43 -0600 Message-ID: From: Brandon Gooch To: Julian Elischer Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: virtualization@freebsd.org Subject: Re: limitations on jail style virtualization X-BeenThere: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of various virtualization techniques FreeBSD supports." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 22:20:56 -0000 On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Julian Elischer wrote= : > We discussed this at MeetBSD last week and it woudl seem that the next > big hurdle for virtualization would seem to be a good concept to allow > jails to have virtual versions of various virtual devices.. > > for example > > pf has been virtualized (when IS that patch going to get committed?) but > pfsync > and pflog use special devices in /dev. > > similarly bpf uses /dev entries but the way they are used means they are > still useful. > > so what happend when a device that is accessed from within a jail creates= a > cloning device? > should it just turn up in the devfs for that jail? > and should it be visible in other jails that happen to be sharing the sam= e > /dev? > > > I have no preconceived ideas abot this. Just possibilities. > > should the cloning code work alongside a new devfs feature that would mak= e > 'per jail' entries? =A0i.e. tun0 would be a different device depending on= what > jail > you were in looking at the /dev? > Was this brought up in any of the discussions? http://www.7he.at/freebsd/vps/ I'm not sure if the VPS project pertains directly to what you're talking about, but perhaps some of the code or ideas from the project might? Even if it doesn't, it's still an exciting project that adds a ton of value to FreeBSD's light-weight virtualization strategy. What do think about the VPS concept in relation to the current virtualization effort being put in to jails? It seems to me that recent efforts at virtualizing kernel-level objects makes VPS the future of FreeBSD's virtualization, leaving jails as a great way to isolate applications... -Brandon From owner-freebsd-virtualization@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Nov 13 23:30:07 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: virtualization@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A097106566B for ; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 23:30:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: from out-0.mx.aerioconnect.net (out-0-31.mx.aerioconnect.net [216.240.47.91]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11A308FC15 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 23:30:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from idiom.com (postfix@mx0.idiom.com [216.240.32.160]) by out-0.mx.aerioconnect.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oADNU6ht002503; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 15:30:06 -0800 X-Client-Authorized: MaGic Cook1e X-Client-Authorized: MaGic Cook1e X-Client-Authorized: MaGic Cook1e Received: from julian-mac.elischer.org (h-67-100-89-137.snfccasy.static.covad.net [67.100.89.137]) by idiom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADED92D6012; Sat, 13 Nov 2010 15:30:03 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4CDF1F7E.8000601@freebsd.org> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 15:30:06 -0800 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X 10.4; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brandon Gooch References: <4CDEFC2D.4090908@freebsd.org> <4CDF0D87.70700@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4CDF0D87.70700@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.67 on 216.240.47.51 Cc: virtualization@freebsd.org, Jamie Gritton Subject: Re: limitations on jail style virtualization X-BeenThere: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of various virtualization techniques FreeBSD supports." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 23:30:07 -0000 On 11/13/10 2:13 PM, Julian Elischer wrote: > On 11/13/10 1:55 PM, Brandon Gooch wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Julian >> Elischer wrote: >> >> Was this brought up in any of the discussions? >> >> http://www.7he.at/freebsd/vps/ > > no it was not brought up.. > it was an unofficial non-planned discussion that errupted pretty much > spontaneously an a couple of couches so it was not prepared in > advance.. > > Since I don't know much about that project I didn't bring it up. > However I should take the time to read it.. > thanks for bringing it up! replying to myself: Now that I have looked at the reference above I realise that I did look at it before but during a particularly hectic pereiod of my life so I didn't really take it in as much as I should have. I really do like this and I seen no reason why it can not be all linked together. Since I last heard about it, it appears that they have advanced somewhat. They are already integrating the VIMAGE code into their project, and they have extended the VIMAGE mechanism to suite their own purposes. It would be nice if they would show up in -virtualization sometimes so we could include them into our discussions. > >> I'm not sure if the VPS project pertains directly to what you're >> talking about, but perhaps some of the code or ideas from the project >> might? >> >> Even if it doesn't, it's still an exciting project that adds a ton of >> value to FreeBSD's light-weight virtualization strategy. What do think >> about the VPS concept in relation to the current virtualization effort >> being put in to jails? It seems to me that recent efforts at >> virtualizing kernel-level objects makes VPS the future of FreeBSD's >> virtualization, leaving jails as a great way to isolate >> applications... > > it the approaches are compatible I see no reason to not combine > but I'll know more when I have read it. the approaches are different but not necessarily incompatible In particular I'd like to hear what Jamie (James Gritton) thinks about it, as he has most of the jail direction in his head :-) I'd certainly like to be able do do many of the things they hope to do (or have a start at). Julian > >> -Brandon >> > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >