[zones-discuss] Future directions of Zones?
There are speculations that future Microsoft Windows OS, will only be a kernel. And each program will be installed in an individual VM created for that program. Hence, the kernel would be minimalistic and not bloated. Can not something similar be done to Solaris? For instance, small Kernel, and everything installed in separate zones? This requires that Solaris Zones can be very minimilastic, they read the system files from the Kernel install, and write in it's own filesystem. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zones-discuss mailing list zones-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [zones-discuss] Future directions of Zones?
I thought thats the reason we have core or core + networking to begin with. also we have JeOS with open solaris. Both of these aproaches to install solaris are almost bare bones. > Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 10:01:35 -0700 > From: knatte_fnatte_tja...@yahoo.com > To: zones-discuss@opensolaris.org > Subject: [zones-discuss] Future directions of Zones? > > There are speculations that future Microsoft Windows OS, will only be a > kernel. And each program will be installed in an individual VM created for > that program. Hence, the kernel would be minimalistic and not bloated. > > Can not something similar be done to Solaris? For instance, small Kernel, and > everything installed in separate zones? This requires that Solaris Zones can > be very minimilastic, they read the system files from the Kernel install, and > write in it's own filesystem. > -- > This message posted from opensolaris.org > ___ > zones-discuss mailing list > zones-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ zones-discuss mailing list zones-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [zones-discuss] Future directions of Zones?
Orvar Korvar wrote: > There are speculations that future Microsoft Windows OS, will only be a > kernel. And each program will be installed in an individual VM created for > that program. Hence, the kernel would be minimalistic and not bloated. > > Can not something similar be done to Solaris? For instance, small Kernel, and > everything installed in separate zones? This requires that Solaris Zones can > be very minimilastic, they read the system files from the Kernel install, and > write in it's own filesystem. Given that (in the current design) all non-global zones share a single system kernel, and VMs are definitely not in use, I don't see how moving functionality out into non-global zones will change kernel bloat one way or the other. Zones avoid the overhead of traditional VMs by not being actual VMs. Perhaps instead of "Zones," you actually mean "xVM/Xen." If so, then, yes, that might be possible. It's merely a matter of software (much would have to be written to proxy operations across VMs) and performance (just about all message-passing schemes I've seen were slower than non-message-based equivalents). Although possible, it's unclear to me whether any of that would be desirable. "So, what problem is it you're solving here?" -- James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W ___ zones-discuss mailing list zones-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [zones-discuss] Future directions of Zones?
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Orvar Korvar wrote: > There are speculations that future Microsoft Windows OS, will only be a > kernel. And each program will be installed in an individual VM created for > that program. Hence, the kernel would be minimalistic and not bloated. What kind of VM? If it's something like Solaris Zones, then yes, you could do this with Solaris. Indeed, Solaris TX shows how to do it. If you mean something more like VMware or VBox VMs, then Solaris Zones are not the animal that you're looking for. Nico -- ___ zones-discuss mailing list zones-discuss@opensolaris.org
