kernel level virtualisation requirements.
jroberson at chesapeake.net
Sat Oct 13 00:44:25 PDT 2007
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007, James Gritton wrote:
> Julian Elischer wrote:
>> What I'd like to see is a bit of a 'a-la-carte' virtualisation
>> 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
> CPU scheduling, in particular schedule the CPU first by jail, and then
> by processes within jail.
So the question I have is; why do all of these things instead of
vmware/xen/other full virtualization? We can implement these
technologies. Specifically, I could do the CPU scheduling. However, why
not just fix Xen? There may be a very good answer to this, I just don't
> Filesystem quotas, without the need for each jail to have its own mount
> A lot of things that fall under the IPC category: UNIX domain sockets (part
> 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
> 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
> freebsd-arch at freebsd.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
More information about the freebsd-arch