On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 04:56:25PM -0800, yary wrote:
> On 22/01/07, Joachim Schipper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 12:42:03PM -0800, yary wrote:
> >For real virtual stuff, qemu works well - although not exactly swiftly.
> >It's usable for testing, but don't try to run it in production.
> >
> >If you can handle being a little less virtual, chroot + systrace allows
> >you to build specialized mini-systems with good security and
> >performance. This can be rather useful for running, for instance,
> >several disconnected daemons on a single server; OTOH, it's completely
> >useless if you are trying to do kernel development work. So it depends
> >on what you are trying to do; however, since very few of those
> >virtualization systems will allow you to run a different kernel from the
> >one you are running on the host, this is not that big a loss.
> >
> >Finally, while OpenBSD does not run many virtualization environments, it
> >does run *in* most virtualization environments. At least VMWare should
> >work, and Xen is being developed [1].
> >
> > Joachim
> >
> >[1] Or might be ready, or might be abandoned - I'm afraid I'm not
> >certain here.
>
> I have two uses in mind, one is trying out/debugging network
> scenarios, the other is creating a virutal machine where a couple
> trusted users can set up some network services (webserver, svn
> repository) separate from my own. The first pretty much requires some
> kind of virutalization, and the second is much easier with it, AFAIK.
qemu is useful for the first case; sysjail (which is a systrace wrapper)
might be useful for the second, as pointed out.
> For now, I don't have any pressing network problems, and I'm just
> going to set up a separate machine from surplus hardware for my
> friends. Would like to have some VM stuff to play with so have the
> experience if/when I need it (plus, it seems "fun"), prefer to stay
> within OpenBSD, easier on my brain.
Good idea.
Joachim
