kernel level virtualisation requirements.

[Ivan Voras]

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.