From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 06:03:55 +0100 From: Eris Discordia To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-ID: <614A1A71CCEA9341784793AF@[192.168.1.2]> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Subject: Re: [9fans] security questions Topicbox-Message-UUID: dfbf8c56-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > Plan 9 itself makes a great platfrom on which to construct > virtualisation. I don't know what Inferno is but the phrase 'virtual machine' appears somewhere in the product description. Isn't Inferno the 'it' you're searching for? --On Friday, April 17, 2009 6:48 AM +0200 lucio@proxima.alt.za wrote: >>> One can indirectly (and more consistently) limit the number of >>> allocated resources in this fashion (indeed, the number of open file >>> descriptors) by determining the amount of memory consumed by that >>> resource as proportional to the size of the resource. If I as a user >>> have 64,000 allocations of type Foo, and struct Foo is 64 bytes, then >>> I hold 1,000 Foos. >> >> And by this, I clearly mean 64,000 bytes of allocated Foos. > > From purely a spectator's perspective, I believe that if one needs to > add considerable complexity to Plan 9 in the form of user-based kernel > resource management, one may as well look carefully at the option of > adding self-virtualisation to the Plan 9 kernel and manage resources > in the virtualisation layer. > > Plan 9 has provided a wide range of sophisticated, yet simple > techniques to solve a wide range of computer/system problems, but I'm > of the opinion that it missed virtualisation as one of these > techniques. I may be dreaming, but I've long been of the opinion that > Plan 9 itself makes a great platfrom on which to construct > virtualisation. > > ++L > >