Re: Port DragonFly to Xen platform

[Magnus Eriksson <magetoo@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Freddie Cash wrote:

> PV DomU support is "fairly easy",

> Dom0 support is hard, and requires a lot of changes to the kernel, as you
> are essentially adding a whole new CPU architecture (Xen).

Well, I come from NetBSD, so I don't really see the problem with 
doing that.  Happens all the time.  :-)


> In the long-run, a KVM-like system where the DFly kernel becomes the
> hypervisor and VMs run as user processes is better than the Xen split-dom,
> "we're our own architecture, but we fake it using a real kernel" stuff.

It's really two different things entirely.  Seems to me that with KVM, it 
is assumed that the host OS is given, and it provides a way to more easily 
virtualize guests; Xen puts itself in the center, and instead treats hosts 
and guests as exchangable.  I like the idea that you can treat it as just 
another hardware architecture.

But as has been said before, KVM could benefit vkernels, and any other 
virtualization solution, so I can definitely see why that would be 
attractive.


MAgnus