Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751163AbWC1E2q (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Mar 2006 23:28:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751210AbWC1E2q (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Mar 2006 23:28:46 -0500 Received: from mail.tmr.com ([64.65.253.246]:24985 "EHLO pixels.tmr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751163AbWC1E2p (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Mar 2006 23:28:45 -0500 Message-ID: <4428BB5C.3060803@tmr.com> Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 23:28:12 -0500 From: Bill Davidsen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.1) Gecko/20060130 SeaMonkey/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hansen CC: Kirill Korotaev , "Eric W. Biederman" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, herbert@13thfloor.at, devel@openvz.org, serue@us.ibm.com, akpm@osdl.org, sam@vilain.net, Alexey Kuznetsov , Pavel Emelianov , Stanislav Protassov Subject: Re: [RFC] Virtualization steps References: <44242A3F.1010307@sw.ru> <44242D4D.40702@yahoo.com.au> <1143228339.19152.91.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <1143228339.19152.91.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1628 Lines: 39 Dave Hansen wrote: > On Sat, 2006-03-25 at 04:33 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: >> Oh, after you come to an agreement and start posting patches, can you >> also outline why we want this in the kernel (what it does that low >> level virtualization doesn't, etc, etc) > > Can you wait for an OLS paper? ;) > > I'll summarize it this way: low-level virtualization uses resource > inefficiently. > > With this higher-level stuff, you get to share all of the Linux caching, > and can do things like sharing libraries pretty naturally. > > They are also much lighter-weight to create and destroy than full > virtual machines. We were planning on doing some performance > comparisons versus some hypervisors like Xen and the ppc64 one to show > scaling with the number of virtualized instances. Creating 100 of these > Linux containers is as easy as a couple of shell scripts, but we still > can't find anybody crazy enough to go create 100 Xen VMs. But these require a modified O/S, do they not? Or do I read that incorrectly? Is this going to be real virtualization able to run any O/S? Frankly I don't see running 100 VMs as a realistic goal, being able to run Linux, Windows, Solaris and BEOS unmodified in 4-5 VMs would be far more useful. > > Anyway, those are the things that came to my mind first. I'm sure the > others involved have their own motivations. > > -- Dave > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/