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

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 <cdl@asgaard.org> 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
>> dc@ietf.org
>> 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
>
>