| |||||||||||||
An Introduction to Full Virtualization With Xen (Linux.com)An Introduction to Full Virtualization With Xen (Linux.com)Posted Oct 25, 2012 12:08 UTC (Thu) by Tobu (subscriber, #24111)In reply to: An Introduction to Full Virtualization With Xen (Linux.com) by rwmj Parent article: An Introduction to Full Virtualization With Xen (Linux.com) You mean a process with a kernel, a scheduler, a page allocator, etc, underneath? That's not the same level of safety and implementation control at all.
(Log in to post comments)
An Introduction to Full Virtualization With Xen (Linux.com) Posted Oct 25, 2012 13:00 UTC (Thu) by rwmj (subscriber, #5474) [Link]
No, I mean what I said: a process.
An Introduction to Full Virtualization With Xen (Linux.com) Posted Oct 25, 2012 13:37 UTC (Thu) by Tobu (subscriber, #24111) [Link] You did, but Apache doesn't illustrate very well. It targets POSIX, and just about every operation it does (network, memory, storage) goes through the syscall boundary. It also has multiple processes, which implies another large chunk of ipc, scheduling, and resource management is done outside of it. These abstractions are rigid boundaries that it cannot cross.
An Introduction to Full Virtualization With Xen (Linux.com) Posted Oct 25, 2012 14:00 UTC (Thu) by rwmj (subscriber, #5474) [Link]
OK, but you can use mmap, O_DIRECT etc with a Linux kernel.
If you mean that it's better to program directly against the Xen hypervisor or some other exokernel, instead of using Linux at all, then Mirage is certainly an argument for doing that. (Also loving it myself because it's written largely in OCaml ...)
But the at some point I just know that my program is going to want to write to a file or ask the user a question, and then having Linux around and improving its support for low-level ops starts to look like a better long term option.
|
|||||||||||||