Re: [dc] draft-khasnabish-vmmi-problems-00.txt

[Christopher LILJENSTOLPE <[e-mail]>]

Greetings Vishwas,

	And I guess I am saying that I'm not sure I agree.  If a single process running can kill all the other processes on a given system (especially if it is in "user space" - which I would assume for control plane functions), I would say that there are more substantial issues with the architecture of that particular VM distribution.  Similar answer if someone actually put a control-plane engine (think routing protocols) in kernel space.  We, as a standards organization can't save the world from less-than-inteligent developers....


	Chris

On 20Jan2012, at 15.47, Vishwas Manral wrote:

> Hi Chistopher,
> 
> I totally agree.
> 
> The point I was making was that the hypervisor is the single point of
> failure which can cause all the guest OS to fail. The more complex you
> make the functionality the higer the chances of failure. So we should
> work with that thought in mind.
> 
> Thanks,
> Vishwas
> 
> On 1/20/12, Christopher LILJENSTOLPE <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Greetings,
>> 
>> 	Another way of looking at it is a hypervisor is really an operating system
>> distribution.  Many of the hypervisors out there have the network "switch"
>> as a separate process (actually I believe all of them do).  So, if we are
>> saying that networking intel doesn't belong in an OS distribution, that is a
>> departure from current thinking :)
>> 
>> 	Chris
>> 
>> On 20Jan2012, at 15.31, Melinda Shore wrote:
>> 
>>> On 01/20/2012 02:18 PM, Vishwas Manral wrote:
>>>> An interesting thing to note is that the more the functionality you
>>>> put in the hypervisor, the more you stress the single point of failure
>>>> in the virtualized system.
>>> 
>>> Well, there are a few ways to look at it.  For example,
>>> the fewer components you've got the larger the mean time
>>> between failures.  But aside from that it's been a
>>> general rule of thumb that you want to minimize the
>>> impact of failed components on non-failed components
>>> (the fate sharing principle).
>>> 
>>> At any rate the hypervisor (at least the ones with which
>>> I'm familiar) basically *are* network devices - they
>>> function as a switch, or even a NAT.  If you're going to
>>> suggest that they can't be used to terminate control plane
>>> sessions I hope there's a more compelling reason for it
>>> than what has been offered so far.
>>> 
>>> Melinda
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dc mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dc
>> 
>> --
>> 李柯睿
>> Check my PGP key here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc
>> Current vCard here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.vcf
>> 
>> 

--  
李柯睿
Check my PGP key here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc
Current vCard here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.vcf