On 03/21/2010 10:08 PM, Olivier Galibert wrote:That's not always true.On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 10:01:51PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:On 03/21/2010 09:17 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:Which userspace? Deploying *anything* in the guest can be aAdding any new daemon to an existing guest is a deployment and usabilityThe logical conclusion of that is that everything should be built into
nightmare.
the kernel. Where a failure brings the system down or worse. Where you
have to bear the memory footprint whether you ever use the functionality
or not. Where to update the functionality you need to deploy a new
kernel (possibly introducing unrelated bugs) and reboot.
If userspace daemons are such a deployment and usability nightmare,
maybe we should fix that instead.
nightmare, including paravirt drivers if you don't have a natively
supported in the OS virtual hardware backoff.
That includes the guest kernel. If you can deploy a new kernel in the guest, presumably you can deploy a userspace package.
Deploying things in the
host OTOH is business as usual.
True.
And you're smart enough to know that.
Thanks.