Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:04:57 +0200 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kernel level virtualisation requirements. Message-ID: <ff4q73$c1c$1@ger.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <200710171237.07583.zec@icir.org> References: <470E5BFB.4050903@elischer.org> <20071016075255.GG61822@webcom.it> <ff3fev$3fq$1@ger.gmane.org> <200710171237.07583.zec@icir.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Marko Zec wrote: > Actually, resource virtualization done at kernel level could offer great > degree of flexiblity. Ideally, a modular virtualization framework > would allow one to virtualize only the resources one needs, for example > having a single process talking to several isolated networking domains, > or having several processes bound to the same slot in a proportional > share CPU scheduler, sharing or not sharing the same filesystem > hierarchy etc. I think the thrust of this thread was in tackling > people's imagination on how such a modular virtualization framework > should look like, and which capabilities it should offer and which not. > I.e. not get carried away in comparing kernel-level virtualization in > general against Xen and alike, which are undoubtably very useful tools > which have secured their place under the sun... Of course, we speak about different concepts of "flexibility" - in case one wants to run FreeBSD and only FreeBSD then jail-like systems (kernel-level virtualization) are better for almost all circumstances then a heavy-weight kernel-on-top-of-a-kernel approach.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ff4q73$c1c$1>