From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
From: Leo Caves <lsdc1@york.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <237cdbb8.0403190517.1fb498c7@posting.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
References: <20040318091052.66c7ec8d@as-tech-l.apnic.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] xen port?
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 14:01:37 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3995a628-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

ggm@apnic.net (George Michaelson) wrote in message news:<20040318091052.6=
6c7ec8d@as-tech-l.apnic.net>...
>
> can I get a brief sitrep on xen?=20
>=20

Xen looks interesting:  =20
to save a google:  http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/SRG/netos/xen/

Xen appears to be a mulitplexer for (appropriately ported) operating
systems(?)  Plan9 and inferno are so light-weight, you can imagine
instances being created in a thread-like manner.

It might be an interesting route for providing secure services ("have
a whole machine - its yours!"), but quite a different model from (say)
a name-space protected sandbox on plan9/inferno.

Also, inferno (emu) is (already) a virtual OS.  Would Xen offer any
advantages over multiple inferno instances hosted on a conventional
OS?

I am interested to hear opinion on what xen might offer in the Plan
9/inferno world-view.


Leo
Followup-To:=20
Distribution:=20
Organization: University of Bath Computing Services, UK
Keywords:=20
Cc:=20


--=20
Dennis Davis, BUCS, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK
D.H.Davis@bath.ac.uk