Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 13:36:02 +0200 From: joris dedieu <joris.dedieu@gmail.com> To: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD KVM port Message-ID: <BANLkTiknX=Z_S3d%2BP3BEmR9cJjyVv_NsdQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=USNedYKHM-4UC=pkiymMhDyNk2A@mail.gmail.com> References: <BANLkTi=Sq_5FffDRxp_3NzP-zsiLXs4Wpg@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinaVsD_6kWMohWS66w5MKw=69Qjfw@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTimUU-%2BD0hG2zOH8eejg4bMMhoXssQ@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=USNedYKHM-4UC=pkiymMhDyNk2A@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2011/6/30 K. Macy <kmacy@freebsd.org>: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Prateek Sharma <prateek3.14@gmail.com> w= rote: >> Thanks for informing about BHyve. >> >> But KVM is feature-complete, and has been around for a long time as >> well. Also supports a large number of guests etc. vmware and xen are around for a long time. KVM is the new one in production context. > > And is GPL and dependent on Linux APIs. Any KVM port will > intrinsically be dependent on shimming to Linux APIs with all the > problems that that potentially entails. IMHO gpl is not the main problem. KVM is a linux kernel module that manage virtual contexts. It works with an io hypervisor (virtio) and and hardware emulator (qemu). So porting KVM to FreeBSD has no sense. The need is a tool to manage hardware contexts= . This tool is BHyve, I think. Let's have a look at what we currently get. - Qemu is working but does not support vt. - VirtualBox just works and support vt - Jails are becoming real containers - NetApp is working on a new hypervisor - A virtio driver should be soon available - Xen is supported has a domU - a set of useful features like cpuset, vnet, zfs, hast, rctl, geom are now available So what is missing ? Maybe an unified manager ala libvirt ? Some fs improvement like distribution, iscsi ? A bsd style cluster manager ? A lot of things are missing most of them are configuration tools or stabilization, finalization of existing projects. But not an other hypervisor, I think. Cheers Joris > > > Cheers > > >> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:15 PM, K. Macy <kmacy@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> Courtesy of NetApp, FreeBSD has grown its own hypervisor "BHyve". I >>> don't have the initial commit at hand but it shouldn't be hard to >>> find. This is still a bit green, but is quite promising. >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Prateek Sharma <prateek3.14@gmail.com>= wrote: >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> =A0 I wanted to know the status of KVM (qemu-kvm) on FreeBSD. There >>>> seems to have been some work done earlier >>>> [http://retis.sssup.it/~fabio/freebsd/lkvm/] , but it seems quite old >>>> (2007) . >>>> >>>> =A0 =A0Is it possible to run KVM on freebsd, or is there some work >>>> already going into this ? >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list >>>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization >>>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscribe@f= reebsd.org" >>>> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscribe@free= bsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BANLkTiknX=Z_S3d%2BP3BEmR9cJjyVv_NsdQ>