OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction
Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction [message #1364 is a reply to message #1354] Tue, 07 February 2006 11:49 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
dev is currently offline  dev
Messages: 1693
Registered: September 2005
Location: Moscow
Senior Member

>>> 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.

>> 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 :)

> 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.

> Also, the problem space in B) is now very well explored. To start with
> A) would mean to throw away 4+ years of experience at this approach
> (just counting vserver and variants - not FreeBSD Jail, etc). Trying to
> re-base B) atop a massive refactoring and new patch like A) would incur
> a lot of work; however fitting it into B) is natural and solved
> conceptually and in practice, with the only drawback I see being that
> the use cases mentioned above wouldn't suffer from the side-effects of
> B).
Have you saw my patches?
This is B) :) This is what we should start with IMHO.
Having a containers and isolation all these talks about A) will be much
more precise.

Kirill
 
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: Tue Aug 05 11:19:43 GMT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 1.69750 seconds