From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Domain Groups: Introduction Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:27:59 +0000 Message-ID: References: <45DC7E93.10107@tycho.ncsc.mil> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <45DC7E93.10107@tycho.ncsc.mil> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Chris Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, "George S. Coker, II" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 21/2/07 17:17, "Chris" wrote: > This is the part of the discussion I most wanted to have. Whatever > mechanism you use to operate on a set of domains, life is better when > the hypervisor is aware of the group abstraction. With a group-aware > hypervisor there is a robustness gain because even if the entire control > stack falls over, group data can be re-populated from the hypervisor. There are other ways to store information in a way that persists across daemon restarts. Like writing it to a file (perhaps via xenstored). > Also, having group data managed in the hypervisor provides a level of > separation between the group policy in the control stack and the > management mechanism in the VMM. A layered implementation, including separation of mechanism and policy, is quite possible without putting the different layers at different privilege levels. > Although both Domain Groups and XSM can stand on their own merits I'm not convinced! :-) -- Keir