Re: [Xen-devel] [Minios-devel] [Xen-API] [RFC] Unicore Subproject Proposal

[Simon Kuenzer]

Hey Anil,

On 13.09.2017 12:11, Anil Madhavapeddy wrote:

On 11 Sep 2017, at 13:08, Simon Kuenzer  wrote:



Just my 2 cents:
1. Is this academic project, or it have specific goals and areas of 
application? Would be good to have some practical use-cases and well formulated 
list of problems (we all feel these by guts, but...), it aiming to solve. IMHO 
that will help to prioritize functionality and get usable result faster :)


It is kind of both, however we aim a strong focus on real world problems: IoT, 
Mobile Edge Computing (MEC), Automotive, Virtual Network Functions (VNFs), and 
others.
We have played with many Unikernels (ClickOS, Mirage, Rump, OSv, and others) 
and tried to apply them in the several areas. While doing this, we noticed that 
each area benefits differently from the properties that Unikernels give - which 
is great (e.g., instant boot times for MEC, high performance for NFV, resource 
efficiency for IoT). However, building and maintaining new Unikernels (as we 
did with ClickOS, MiniCache, and Minipython) is currently painful.
Because of different focuses on properties and ported/implemented applications, 
most Unikernel today are bound to their own OS layers (e.g., ClickOS uses a 
different Mini-OS than Mirage). Each application requires a different subset of 
OS layers but also enables different optimizations of them.

In order to solve this, we came up with the Unicore proposal. But I agree with 
your suggestion at this point: It helps for the project start to focus on some 
initial areas. For now, I hope this is driven by the first contributors, and I 
have personally IoT in mind. Since the project goal is so ambitious, we should 
keep the long-term goal in mind from the beginning.



Thanks very much for kicking off this initiative. Maintaining a forked MiniOS 
has been a multi-year source of a maintenance burden for MirageOS, and we would 
love to be more aligned with an upstream version and benefit from new features 
such as (e.g.) HVM booting.



We have the same burden with ClickOS and all the other unikernels we 
have built. Features like HVM booting or support for different 
hypervisors, are always something that users ask for. Since many 
Unikernel projects struggle with this, I would like to have the 
maintenance effort of a common base concentrated.
But we also learned that each Unikernel has own requirements: This is 
why Unicore has to provide full configuration flexibility. Only then, 
all Unikernel projects could really benefit from it.


So, I think we should all focus on the Unicore base and make our 
individual projects successful with it ;-).



 From a MirageOS perspective, we'd be happy to switch to something that can 
give us just enough MiniOS for our ocaml-freestanding [1] code to boot on Xen.  
One requirement from our side is that we need to strip down MiniOS to remove 
even the C xenstore implementation, since we have pure OCaml gnt, xenstore and 
device driver implementations.  We'd be happy to try out an alpha Unicore and 
let you know what is in excess to our needs as soon as you have something to 
publish.


Sure, lets do this! ;-) This is perfectly inline with the goals we 
target with the Unicore build system.




So full support from MirageOS for this initiative!


Thank you so much!



regards,
Anil



Simon


[1] https://github.com/mirage/ocaml-freestanding/


___
Minios-devel mailing list
minios-de...@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/minios-devel



--

Simon Kuenzer
シモン クゥンツァー
Research Scientist,
Networked Systems and Data Analytics Group
NEC Laboratories Europe, Network Research Division
Kurfuerstenanlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg
Tel. +49 (0)6221 4342-264
Fax: +49 (0)6221 4342-5264
e-mail:  simon.kuen...@neclab.eu

NEC Europe Ltd | Registered Office: Athene, Odyssey
Business Park, West End Road, London, HA4 6QE, GB
Registered in England 2832014

___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [Minios-devel] [Xen-API] [RFC] Unicore Subproject Proposal

[Samuel Thibault]

Hello,

Anil Madhavapeddy, on mer. 13 sept. 2017 11:11:03 +0100, wrote:
> Maintaining a forked MiniOS has been a multi-year source of a maintenance 
> burden for MirageOS,

I'm just wondering why this happened?

The mini-os repository is open for development, it's just a matter of
agreeing on how to implement features :)

> One requirement from our side is that we need to strip down MiniOS to remove 
> even the C xenstore implementation, since we have pure OCaml gnt, xenstore 
> and device driver implementations.

That could already be a build option in MiniOS.  It seems it actually
already is, via $(CONFIG_XENBUS)=n.

If launching UniCore allows to get momentum to achieve that, I'm all for
it, I'm just wondering whether the problem is not actually about putting
a name on it, but just discussing here what is needed, and see how to
implement it all within the same repository. But again, I understand
that putting a name can trigger that discussion and be a "let's do it!"
message :)

Samuel

___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel