kernel level virtualisation requirements.

[Jeff Roberson]

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
>> 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.

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 
know it.

Thanks,
Jeff

>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-arch at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>