Re: [Xen-users] Portability (was Re: Users can provide...)

[Sascha Retzki <sretzki@xxxxxx>]

On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 03:36:16PM +0100, Mark Williamson wrote:
> By "weird filesystems" I really meant that this bootloader approach will 
> support any guest filesystem that Linux can support.  This includes the 

"Linux": No.. the library of the program you mentioned, pyGrub. Right?


> Adding support to the dom0-based loader shouldn't be *that* hard but does 
> require explicit use of a new filesystem library.  Also, I doubt that all 
> FSes supported by Linux have such a library available...
> 

Isn't that just bloat? What is actually "hard" to just boot the first
sector of the filesystem, wihtout knowing nothing about it at all?

We can assume that there was the OS installation procedure that installed
a bootloader to load everything appropiatly. Like you install the OS 
nativly. Just that you make the bootloader boot a domU kernel, and thats
all.

> I don't know much about Linux's UFS support.  However, if it's able to mount 
> UFS read-only that'd be enough.  Can it do this reliably?

Well "reliably" ;) .. I mounted UFSs RO in the past, But I rather mount ext2
from any BSD ;)

> 
> > Speaking of it, as there are several Operating Systems out there which
> > want to act as a domO-able OS, too - How "portable" do you think Xen is?
> 
> Xen itself shouldn't need to be modified at all for this - guests need to be 
> ported to use the dom0 and privileged interfaces, which are OS independent...

Eh, sorry I misused terminology. I meant the user-space tools needed
by the dom0 to control the other domains, so the "frontend" (I like that
term :) ). 

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users