kernel level virtualisation requirements.

martinko gamato at users.sf.net
Wed Oct 17 14:39:20 PDT 2007


Julian Elischer wrote:
> Jeff Roberson wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Generally, you can run several hundred (or more) virtual jail/vimage 
> style machines. xen/vmware uses so much more resources that you are 
> usually limited to
> so number like 20. it is possible in a virtual networking setup to have 
> a single process
> spanning several virtual environments (for example one process with a 
> socket in each of the child universes).
> It is a valid question, but there is I think a place for both types of
> partitioning.
> 

On the other hand fixing Xen or implementing something like LKVM seems 
to be much easier than changing all those subsystems people would like 
to resource partition.  Well, it's just my guess.

Martin



More information about the freebsd-arch mailing list