Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 21:31:07 +0800 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: Saifi Khan <saifi.khan@twincling.org> Cc: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: My FreeBSD-current/Xen install notes Message-ID: <d763ac660905190631p2ff604b0gaa12ee3026b91ebc@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0905190944510.1090@localhost> References: <d763ac660905180553x5c7b3c5bq61acab3d28810a24@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0905190807290.887@localhost> <d763ac660905182052t294e588bu593f1d660aef8b52@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0905190944510.1090@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2009/5/19 Saifi Khan <saifi.khan@twincling.org>: > =A0. is dom0 support something that FreeBSD will target at some > =A0 point in time or would be happy to be domU ? If Kip (and other Xen-clueful people get funding) - and there's time - then I bet so. > =A0. there was some mention of vimage/bitvisor in one of the > =A0 slides (i think on scribd.com). So, is it that jails getting > =A0 extended to support virtualization+containers and thus a > =A0 entirely different approach which does not use Xen ? These solve different problem sets. :) People seem to think "virtualisation" is "virtualisation". It isn't. It depends on what kind(s) of problems you're trying to solve. Xen solves a certain set of virtualisation problems. > =A0. is it envisaged that a stable NetBSD dom0 implementation > =A0 would then be ported to FreeBSD (maybe) ? No idea. Is it stable? :) Personally, I'd prefer to see the FreeBSD DomU stuff 100% bulletproof and documented before more stuff is hacked on, but as I said before, I'm just interested in getting the current pieces into some kind of documented shape; I'm not hacking on Xen by any stretch of the imagination! Adrian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?d763ac660905190631p2ff604b0gaa12ee3026b91ebc>