anttiok

8 ms·

31.
by anttiok 11y ago
> There is only one kind of "hardware" in the universe: the supported hypervisor. No need for drivers for anything else. An explicit goal of rumprun is to support real hardware. Defining the cloud as the only supported
32.
by anttiok 11y ago
Let's assume that a consumer device vendor does not want to pay more for hardware than what is required by their application. It's an assumption, but I think it's a fairly reasonable one to start from. So the game boils down
33.
by anttiok 11y ago
Not only a hypervisor-generic, just generic. Whoever said that unikernels required the cloud wasn't thinking too much </friendlyjab>. I share avsm's excitement, and think we're on the verge of a transition away fr
34.
The Web Site to Remember National Semiconductor's Series 32000 Family(cpu-ns32k.net)
1 points by anttiok 11y ago|0 comments
35.
by anttiok 11y ago
The rump kernel unikernel (rumprun) will happily work on actual hardware. It's a bit hazy if that's a unikernel or an embedded system in that case (and what's the difference anyway?), but to avoid hairsplitting, you can repl
36.
by anttiok 12y ago
For one, the micro kernel would be missing ;) More seriously though, you're absolutely right in that it's a step in the direction of an "optional" microkernel architecture. That's actually how rump kernels on NetB
37.
by anttiok 12y ago
While I can't speak for anyone else, the intent is that people would follow the "Getting started" tutorial linked from the front page of http://rumpkernel.org/ : http://wiki.rumpkernel.org/Tut
38.
by anttiok 12y ago
A rump kernel is not an OS and it's not restricted to running in usermode. see: http://wiki.rumpkernel.org/Info%3A-Comparison-of-rump-kernel...
39.
by anttiok 12y ago
The idea of rump kernels is to make existing kernel driver implementations available in environments beyond the original [monolithic] kernel they were written for. The idea is not to figure out some perfect structure for an OS. There is a
40.
by anttiok 12y ago
Unikernel: yes, that's what the article mostly describes. Microkernel: yes, though strictly speaking you'd use rump kernels for the servers in a microkernel OS. (that was actually the first use case back in 2007) There are multip
41.
by anttiok 12y ago
http://www.iki.fi/pooka/private/baremetal/art.html It doesn't contain the pretty css, and I probably fixed a tyop or two when posting, but the content should be 99.9% same.
42.
by anttiok 12y ago
MirageOS, at least from my viewpoint, is trying to figure out what the cloud software stacks of tomorrow should look like. Rump kernels give you production quality building blocks for running existing code today in any environment. I woul
43.
by anttiok 12y ago
Yes, works on ARM. The only architecture-specific support that a rump kernel needs is cache-coherent memory operations, and those are necessary only if you want to run on a multiprocessor system. So works on anything to which you can co
44.
by anttiok 12y ago
Heh, I suspect "the author" missed a digit when inputting the calculation. bc needs a calculate-what-i-meant mode!
45.
by anttiok 13y ago
Based on "Why ZeroVM?" ( http://zerovm.org/wiki/Why_ZeroVM ), a large part of the motivation for ZeroVM is based on the premise that regular VMs require a full OS and are therefore unacceptably fat. However, t
46.
by anttiok 13y ago
It's awesome to see this work finally hit the tree. Now, I cannot say I agree with all of the motivations. For example, I do not believe that prototyping should be done in kernel mode at all, nor do I believe that using Lua will shie
47.
by anttiok 13y ago
If you're in the habit of writing "struct sockaddr_in sin;", you'll probably be tempted to write "struct sockaddr_un sun;". Just don't expect that code to compile on Solaris.
48.
by anttiok 13y ago
Someone asked me to compare the two: http://blog.netbsd.org/tnf/entry/running_applications_on_the... tl;dr amount of code rewritten vs. reused
49.
by anttiok 13y ago
Yes, tiny resource overhead while still providing near-complete isolation is a big benefit. The current memory overhead from using file system drivers and TCP/IP networking is around 8MB, and I'm sure there's a bunch of fat
50.
by anttiok 13y ago
There is threading in the underlying framework. In fact, since there is no VM support, threading is all you have. However, there is no pthread support which is probably what you are referring to. I don't think pthread support would b
51.
by anttiok 13y ago
It's already been done with a general purpose OS, see https://github.com/anttikantee/rumpuser-xen/ I agree, it was easy to do.