Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:54:04 -0600 From: James Gritton <jamie@gritton.org> To: arch@freebsd.org Cc: Marko Zec <zec@freebsd.org>, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Subject: Re: kernel level virtualisation requirements. Message-ID: <470FD0DC.5080503@gritton.org> In-Reply-To: <470E5BFB.4050903@elischer.org> References: <470E5BFB.4050903@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?470FD0DC.5080503>