OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction
Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction [message #1379 is a reply to message #1364] Tue, 07 February 2006 14:31 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
ebiederm is currently offline  ebiederm
Messages: 1354
Registered: February 2006
Senior Member
Kirill Korotaev <dev@sw.ru> writes:

>>>> We are never going to form a consensus if all of the people doing
>>>> implementations don't talk.
>>>
>>> Speaking of which - it would be interesting to get Kirill's
>>> comments on Eric's patchset ;)
> I'll do comment.

Thank you I will look forward to your comments.

>>> Once we know what's good and bad about both patchsets, we'll
>>> be a lot closer to knowing what exactly should go upstream.
> I'm starting to think that nothing in upstream can be better for all of us :)

In a thread voicing the concerns for maintaining out of tree patches
that is a natural concern.

>> Let's compare approaches of patchsets before the patchsets themselves.
>> It seems to be, should we:
>> A) make a general form of virtualising PIDs, and hope this assists
>> later virtualisation efforts (Eric's patch)
>> B) make a general form of containers/jails/vservers/vpses, and layer
>> PID virtualisation on top of it somewhere (as in openvz, vserver)
> >
>> I can't think of any real use cases where you would specifically want A)
>> without B).
> Exactly! All these patches for A) look weird for me without containers itself. A
> try to make half-solution which is bad.

I am willing to contend that my approach also leads to a complete solution.
In fact I believe my network virtualization has actually gone much farther
than yours. Although I admit there is still some work to do before
the code is in shape to be merged.

You notice in the kernel there is also not a struct process?

To me having a container structure while an obvious approach to the problem
seems to add unnecessary policy to the kernel. Lumping together the
implementation of multiple instances of different namespaces in a way
that the implementation does not require.

Eric
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Versioning issue on vzquota-3.0.0-2
Next Topic: [NET][IA64] Unaligned access in sk_run_filter
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Thu Oct 09 23:31:12 GMT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.11539 seconds