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.

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