On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 14:09 +0200, Daniel Stodden wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 05:17 +0530, Ligesh wrote:
> > 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.
> again, i totally agree that there's a lot to be gained from lightweight
> host-local packet streams.
addendum: the problem may just be that different people expect different
things from xen. once you're running non-server systems, e.g.
integrating a windows guest with your otherwise xen/linux-driven host
for desktop applications, migration gets less interesting. and that is
probably where i'm all for a flat alternative network stack as well.
the whole posting was just meant to make people keeping the stateful
connection migration thing in mind when discussing inter-domain
> but it will remain coming at a cost whenever
> applied to domU, and the fun part is that what you originally wanted to
> achieve, simplyfing domain management by short-circuiting the domU
> access, will ultimately turn into something way more adventurous than
> the IP-based approach as soon as migration comes into play.
LRR - Lehrstuhl für Rechnertechnik und Rechnerorganisation
Institut für Informatik der TU München D-85748 Garching
PGP Fingerprint: F5A4 1575 4C56 E26A 0B33 3D80 457E 82AE B0D8 735B
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Xen-devel mailing list