Your arguments are valid in the case of domU-domU communication system, but
not for dom0-domU. The dom0 will be, and should be aware of migrations and also
there should be non-networking mechanism to manage and control every aspect of
domU from dom0. This in my opinion, is a basic requirement. But I think ppp
over serial port might be the exact thing what I was looking for. PPP doesn't
provide domU-domU, but yes domU-domU actually defeats the entire purpose of Xen
which is isolation, and also that Xen should be agnostic about the type of the
OS running inside the domU.
:: Ligesh :: http://ligesh.com
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 10:54:32PM +0200, Daniel Stodden wrote:
> hi all.
> since you've explicitly asked for comments, here's mine.
> from a performance point of view, it is all obviously correct. get rid
> of the tcp congestion/flow/reliability overhead. in a synchronous,
> reliable environment like host-local domain intercommunication
> infrastructure, as you propose, it is nothing but overhead, and should
> speed up things a lot. plus it saves a whole bunch of memory.
> but there's a different point of view, which i would like to point out.
> if you think about the whole 'virtualization' thing, some of the
> relevant literature is correct to point out that simple unix process is
> nothing but a virtual machine. a 'process vm', in many respects quite
> different from a system vm on top of a hypervisor, like xen, though it
> already has a number of features which make up a virtual machine.
> resource control and abstraction, as an example, being the most
> prominent ones. such comparisons are especially daunting if you look at
> a paravirtualizing, microkernel-style hypervisor design, like xen is
Xen-devel mailing list