Hi guys,
I've been reading about Pacifica and Vanderpool, but it really doesn't seem obvious to me on how exactly the stuff will be implemented.
What I'd like is that BIOS itself would be able to start two or more separate VMs making the running OSs truly independent save hardware failure.
What I fear is that various VM programs (VmWare, VirtualPC, etc) will employ the newly provided code to allow for faster execution of VMs. That would of course still crash the VM if host OS was to crash for any reason.
Also, does anybody have any figures on Pacifica overhead? I guess a 1% CPU overhead per VM would be an acceptable fugure for a home user running a web server or something in a separate VM.
Thx,
Jure
I've been reading about Pacifica and Vanderpool, but it really doesn't seem obvious to me on how exactly the stuff will be implemented.
What I'd like is that BIOS itself would be able to start two or more separate VMs making the running OSs truly independent save hardware failure.
What I fear is that various VM programs (VmWare, VirtualPC, etc) will employ the newly provided code to allow for faster execution of VMs. That would of course still crash the VM if host OS was to crash for any reason.
Also, does anybody have any figures on Pacifica overhead? I guess a 1% CPU overhead per VM would be an acceptable fugure for a home user running a web server or something in a separate VM.
Thx,
Jure
