OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » Container Test Campaign
Re: Container Test Campaign [message #3888 is a reply to message #3871] Thu, 22 June 2006 21:51 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Cedric Le Goater is currently offline  Cedric Le Goater
Messages: 443
Registered: February 2006
Senior Member
Hi marc !

Marc E. Fiuczynski wrote:

> You mention that testing isolation properties is more of an extra than an
> immediate criteria. Based on our experience, this actually is a fairly
> important criteria. Without decent isolation (both from a namespace and
> resource perspective) it is rather difficult to support lots of concurrent
> users. As our paper states, we run anywhere from 30-90 vservers per machine
> (each machine usually with a 2GHz processor and 1GB of RAM).

is that a common setup for planet lab or a maximum ? how many vservers/
vcontext do you think we should try to reach ?

> We are interested in checkpoint/restart too, but have nothing to test /
> contribute. I've forwarded your message to Jason Nieh @ Columbia. He has a
> relatively long history of working in that area. I saw a demo of their
> checkpoint/restart/migration support last December (live video migrated
> between servers within a single IBM blade system).

we've worked a few years with a zap guy. I only wished they were bit more
open (source) about what they've been doing since crak.

> Their latest paper
> published at USENIX LISA also states that they can migrate from one linux
> kernel version to another. This enables "live" system upgrade, which IMHO
> is just as important as load balancing.

this feature is one the *major* features of mobile containers but it will
require specific kernel APIs to make it maintainable on the long term.

> Another area we are quite interested in is "network virtualization" (private
> route tables, ip tables, etc). We are aware that other container based
> systems (e.g., openvz) have support for this, but we (i.e., PlanetLab) are
> pretty much a vserver shop at the moment. We added our own support to
> safely share a single, public IPv4 address between multiple containers,
> while simultaneously support raw sockets etc. This is an absolute
> requirement for PlanetLab, and I'd argue (but not here) that it also is
> important for desktop usage scenarios that involve containers and want to
> avoid the use of NAT.

Did you contribute that feature to vserver ?

So you have different containers exposing the same IP address ? How do you
assign incoming packets to a container ?

thanks,

C.
 
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: [PATCH] fdset's leakage
Next Topic: [andrex@alumni.utexas.net: Bug#378045: vzctl: /etc/init.d/vz gives up too easily, doesn't tell me wh
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Mon Jul 07 00:47:26 GMT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03053 seconds