• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Add Forum section for everything related to virtualization

Should there be a dedicated section for virtualization related topics?

  • Yes

    Votes: 22 68.8%
  • No

    Votes: 7 21.9%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 3 9.4%

  • Total voters
    32

Preetpal

Active Member

Thanks: 25
Messages: 114

#1
This is a request for a new forum section for all topics related to virtualization including:
  • Jails
  • Hypervisors that run on FreeBSD like bhyve
  • Running FreeBSD in virtualized environments (like Hyper V, etc.)
 

Preetpal

Active Member

Thanks: 25
Messages: 114

#2
IMO, this should be done because there isn't a place to create relevant topics. Consequently, when topics are created, they are not easy to find and don't receive the level of participation that they deserve.
 

sidetone

Aspiring Daemon

Thanks: 282
Messages: 847

#3
I support a section for desktop virtualization, because as someone who doesn't use it, I can more easily navigate away from that topic. There is too much use of it, and enough noticeable mention of it, no matter how infrequently it is discussed.

However, I don't support adding jail related subjects into the topic of desktop virtualization. In my opinion, a hypervisor category should only be about an Operating System running on top of a different Operating System's desktop, or emulation.

Jails run natively on FreeBSD, without being mixed up with another operating system. Desktop virtualization is a closer topic to emulation, because in a sense one Operating System or a processor is emulated (or run like an emulator) on top of another operating system's desktop.

A subject of hypervisors and emulation can run together, but without jails. Jails is worthy of its own subforum, even if it overlaps with Ports and Packages and Server and Networking.

edit - Jails including poudriere, don't belong categorized together with hypervisors. If they are put together, no. If they are separate, then yes.
 

Preetpal

Active Member

Thanks: 25
Messages: 114

#4
However, I don't support adding jail related subjects into the topic of desktop virtualization. In my opinion, a hypervisor category should only be about an Operating System running on top of a different Operating System's desktop, or emulation.

Jails run natively on FreeBSD, without being mixed up with another operating system.
Well Jails could be considered an implementation of operating-system level virtualization (a type of virtualization nonetheless). I think they would fit in the category as they are used for similar purposes as virtual machines (mainly to create an isolated virtual environment that is separate from the host environment).
 

sidetone

Aspiring Daemon

Thanks: 282
Messages: 847

#5
Well Jails could be considered an implementation of operating-system level virtualization (a type of virtualization nonetheless). I think they would fit in the category as they are used for similar purposes as virtual machines (mainly to create an isolated virtual environment that is separate from the host environment).
No way. Jails run natively with the operating system, hypervisors do not.

That is a way to simply it for someone who uses FreeBSD on top of an unrelated operating system, a way that complicates it for most users of FreeBSD, who run it directly.
 

sidetone

Aspiring Daemon

Thanks: 282
Messages: 847

#8
Hypervisors, certain compatibility layers, and emulators belong together. I said that jails are native, while hypervisors and emulator pieces are not. This is part of my reasoning why they don't belong together.

Jails don't necessarily need their own section, but they don't belong with non-native virtualization.

Then poudriere categorization can become a problem, if it is mixed in with non-native virtualization.

edit - chroot, poudriere and jails shouldn't be categorized with emulators, hypervisors and other operating system compatibility layers.
 

sidetone

Aspiring Daemon

Thanks: 282
Messages: 847

#10
So then create a section called Containment. In that there could be subsections like Jails, Virtulization, Docker and Others, to quickly name three.
That's a little better.

I would like to see a whole section on Emulation, which includes: Hypervisors (Hardware Emulators), Compatibility layers (Linux compatibility), Video Game emulation, operating system emulation (Wine), anything that has to do with one operating system operating within a different operating system. This is how emulators are categorized in FreeBSD ports.

chroot, jails, package building jails are meant to work with FreeBSD's operating system (native), not emulated parts of unrelated distributions. Package building jails like poudriere already have its section. Jails and chroots can be left as is for now, they can get a tag by the title (like firewalls do), or they can get their own section under miscellaneous.

chroot, jails, and poudriere don't belong in the same category with emulation.
 

Preetpal

Active Member

Thanks: 25
Messages: 114

#11
sidetone I think we can both agree that emulation related topics should get their own sections in the forum (even if we disagree on the categorization and naming of things).

I just grouped jails together with hypervisors since they are both ways to run things in environments that are separated from the host.
 

sidetone

Aspiring Daemon

Thanks: 282
Messages: 847

#12
sidetone I think we can both agree that emulation related topics should get their own sections in the forum (even if we disagree on the categorization and naming of things).

I just grouped jails together with hypervisors since they are both ways to run things in environments that are separated from the host.
With jails and chroot, you're working with FreeBSD's configuration rules that apply to other parts of FreeBSD. A jail contains a virtualized copy of FreeBSD's components. Also, chroot doesn't have to be extensively virtualized to work, it just changes the base directory.

Emulation is for another system, not FreeBSD native. Running FreeBSD within another operating system, running old atari games, Linux compatibility, emulating dos or windows. The configurations have to be set up, to make other operating system components work within another.
 

Preetpal

Active Member

Thanks: 25
Messages: 114

#13
With jails and chroot, you're working with FreeBSD's configuration rules that apply to other parts of FreeBSD.
Jails are much more than chroot. You can have rules inside a jail that differ from the host-system. For example you can prevent privileged users inside a jail from creating raw sockets or setting the jails hostname. See man jail and man jail.conf.

A jail contains a virtualized copy of FreeBSD's components.
Jails do not need to contain a virtualized copy of FreeBSD's components. You can even run Linux systems in a jail using the Linux emulation layer (I believe that's what Docker on FreeBSD does). See: https://wiki.freebsd.org/Jails#Tips.
 

sidetone

Aspiring Daemon

Thanks: 282
Messages: 847

#14
Jails are much more than chroot.
I realized that.
You can have rules inside a jail that differ from the host-system.
FreeBSD jails use the same setup rules as other configuration files from FreeBSD.

Jails do not need to contain a virtualized copy of FreeBSD's components. You can even run Linux systems in a jail using the Linux emulation layer (I believe that's what Docker on FreeBSD does). See: https://wiki.freebsd.org/Jails#Tips.
Jails overlap a lot. I think jails and chroots should get a tag by their name. Some jails fall within emulating another operating system, some jails fall within ports/packages, but overall, FreeBSD jails primarily function by the same fundamental rules of FreeBSD configurations. Emulation for other operating systems, use a configuration that is different than FreeBSD or FreeBSD primarily jails.

There is emulation that doesn't use jails, and for these, they are not in the same category as containers.
 

robroy

Active Member

Thanks: 86
Messages: 155

#15
Friends, I'm one of the few who voted against the addition of a virtualization section, and here's why.

First, I feel that bhyve and jails fit very neatly in to Base System -> General.

I actually do think adding a new area "Ports and Packages -> General," may make sense for post-install questions about VirtualBox and other hypervisors from ports.

The only time I ever even look at the forum categories, is when I'm posting a new thread.

Yet I use the "New Posts" link a thousand times for each time I start a new thread, so I feel like the categories aren't very important (and could even be reduced; for instance, do we really need a whole category for X window managers--threads about that could just go in the Ports and Packages -> General area I'm suggesting here).

Happiness to all of you!
 

sidetone

Aspiring Daemon

Thanks: 282
Messages: 847

#17
It should just be one category for emulators including compatibility layers and hypervisors: Bhyve, Hyperv, Xen, Wine, Linux compatibility, video game console emulation, hardware emulation, bochs, dosbox, running FreeBSD on Windows, or running Windows on FreeBSD. Its category shouldn't be separated by whether it is included in the base-system or in ports. For everyone who wants to use another operating system from another, they belong here.

For jails, it should just be a special tag, available under the sections of ports and packages (for Poudriere), emulation, and networking (for setting up the internet for the jail). Jails covers these areas, so it doesn't make sense to give it a thread category. Give it a tag instead, so when you click the tag, it will appear as a category, that gives you jails from under different categories.
 
Top