OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » containers development plans
Re: [ckrm-tech] containers development plans [message #19277 is a reply to message #19262] Tue, 10 July 2007 21:30 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
serge is currently offline  serge
Messages: 72
Registered: January 2007
Member
Quoting Serge E. Hallyn (serge@hallyn.com):
> Quoting Paul Jackson (pj@sgi.com):
> > Kirill, Serge, et al,
> > 
> > Is it fair to say then that Paul Menage's containers are primarily
> > for the purposes of managing resources, while namespaces are for the
> > purposes of managing identifiers?
> > 
> > We've got some resources, like cpu cycles, memory bytes, network
> > bandwidth, that we want to allocate and account for differentially
> > by groups of tasks -- that's Menage's containers.
> > 
> > We've got some system wide namespaces, like process id's, that we
> > want to virtualize, for more flexible uses -- these are the name-
> > space containers.
> > 
> > In Serge's opening post to this thread, he wrote:
> > 	1. namespaces
> > 	2. process containers
> > 	3. checkpoint/restart
> > 
> > Are the 'process containers' of item (2) the containers of Paul Menage?
> 
> Yup.
> 
> > If so, then I propose that this thread is misnamed.  It should not be
> > "containers development plans", but rather "namespace, container and
> > c/r development plans."  And if so, there is really no conflict over
> > the use of the word 'container' -- that applies just to the resource
> > virtualization efforts, of which my cpusets is the granddaddy example,
> > being generalized by Paul Menage with his container patches.  The other
> > work is, as Serge actually termed it in the body of his post, better
> > called 'namespaces'.
> > 
> > Perhaps the confusion arose from looking for a single word to encompass
> > all three parts, listed above, of this work.  The efforts have some strong
> 
> Not exactly - the "confusion" arose because the ksummit committee wanted
> to hear about "containers", and agreed that by that term they mean each
> of those three.  So I kept the term 'containers' in the roadmap title,
> but we can change that if it's preferred.

I plan to keep the thread titled 'containers' precisely because *I*
don't care whose work gets renamed, while several other people on both
sides care so strongly, so it would seem rude for me to make that
decision de-facto in this way.

Maybe renaming one or both projects should be listed in the roadmap as a
todo :)

thanks,
-serge
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
 
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: Re: [RFC][-mm PATCH 2/8] Memory controller containers setup (v3)
Next Topic: containers development plans (July 20 version)
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Wed Jul 23 16:57:34 GMT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.23206 seconds