| Re: Re: Which of the virtualization approaches is more suitable for kernel? [message #1750 is a reply to message #1745] |
Wed, 22 February 2006 10:09   |
|
|
Herbert Poetzl wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 07:00:55PM +0300, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
>
>
>>>>- such an approach requires adding of additional argument to many
>>>>functions (e.g. Eric's patch for networking is 1.5 bigger than openvz).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>hmm? last time I checked OpenVZ was quite bloated
>>>compared to Linux-VServer, and Eric's network part
>>>isn't even there yet ...
>>>
>>>
>>This is rather subjective feeling.
>>
>>
>
>of course, of course ...
>
>OpenVZ stable patches:
> 1857829 patch-022stab032-core
> 1886915 patch-022stab034-core
> 7390511 patch-022stab045-combined
> 7570326 patch-022stab050-combined
> 8042889 patch-022stab056-combined
> 8059201 patch-022stab064-combined
>
>Linux-VServer stable releases:
> 100130 patch-2.4.20-vs1.00.diff
> 135068 patch-2.4.21-vs1.20.diff
> 587170 patch-2.6.12.4-vs2.0.diff
> 593052 patch-2.6.14.3-vs2.01.diff
> 619268 patch-2.6.15.4-vs2.0.2-rc6.diff
>
>
Herbert,
Please stop seeding, hmm, falseness. OpenVZ patches you mention are
against 2.6.8 kernel, thus they contain tons of backported mainstream
bugfixes and driver updates; so, most of this size is not
virtualization, but general security/stability/drivers stuff. And yes,
that size also indirectly tells how much work we do to keep our users happy.
Back to the topic. If you (or somebody else) wants to see the real size
of things, take a look at broken-out patch set, available from
http://download.openvz.org/kernel/broken-out/. Here (2.6.15-025stab014.1
kernel) we see that it all boils down to:
Virtualization stuff: diff-vemix-20060120-core 817K
Resource management (User Beancounters): diff-ubc-20060120 377K
Two-level disk quota: diff-vzdq-20051219-2 154K
|
|
|
|
OpenVZ Forum
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
