Re: Network stack cloning / virtualization patches

From: Marko Zec (zec_at_tel.fer.hr)
Date: 05/26/03

  • Next message: Eric W.Bates: "A problem with too many network interfaces" 
    Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 02:18:55 +0200
To: Jordan K Hubbard <jkh@queasyweasel.com>

    Jordan K Hubbard wrote:

    > Have you thought about
    > extending this to the point to where each independent instance truly is
    > a functionally independent kernel instance, similar to some of the
    > "virtual Linux" work done by/for IBM so that you can run n "linuxes"
    > on a single 3090 processor?

    My model is much more in line with the pseudo-VM concepts, like the jail
    is
    (it actually reuses much of the jail code for userland separation
    between
    processes running in different virtual images). However, I'm only
    virtualizing certain resources _within_ the kernel, albeit the entire
    network
    stack is quite a big piece of resource :-) This is fundamentally
    different
    from what IBM does, as they virtualize the entire hardware and run fully
    contained OS images within the VMs. Each approach has its advantages and
    drawbacks, of course. IMO, the main benefits of the "light" VM model lie
    in
    near zero performance penalty compared to the unmodified OS, as well as
    in
    efficient usage of hardware resources (memory, filesystems). On the
    other
    hand, IBM's true VM shines in isolation between the VMs, but lags in
    efficiency...

    So, I'd certainly like to virtualize more system resources and make
    virtual
    images as independent from each other as possible, but they will always
    have
    to share the same kernel.
    Cheers,

    Marko

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

  • Next message: Eric W.Bates: "A problem with too many network interfaces"

    Relevant Pages