OpenVZ Forum


Home » General » Discussions » Future of OpenVZ and ploop?
Future of OpenVZ and ploop? [message #51335] Wed, 16 April 2014 20:36 Go to next message
vztester is currently offline  vztester
Messages: 16
Registered: August 2008
Junior Member
From: *vs.shawcable.net
I am not sure if I am the only one but I prefer the non-ploop OpenVZ and recently downgraded after I found the latest vzctl 4.7 forces ploop on me.

Will there be continued support for the standard OpenVZ setup that we all loved?

If we have to use ploop then OpenVZ loses it's advantage of performance, simplicity and flexibility and then it really just becomes a why-not choose VMWare, KVM or Xen?


Re: Future of OpenVZ and ploop? [message #51336 is a reply to message #51335] Fri, 18 April 2014 09:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ales is currently offline  Ales
Messages: 326
Registered: May 2009
Senior Member
From: *dynamic.sbb.rs
Nothing like a good rant, huh? Twisted Evil

But how does vzctl 4.7 force you into anything? Simply change the VE_LAYOUT variable in /etc/vz/vz.conf back to simfs to make simfs default again, or use the command line switch. Try looking at 'man vzctl'.

Ploop or no ploop, comparing OpenVZ (containers) with VMWare or KVM (full virtualization) is a bit like comparing a rally car with a 12-ton dump truck.

There are things you can't haul with a rally car. There are things you shouldn't do with a dump truck if you have a rally car available. That's about the jist of it. I fail to see how ploop (or simfs, for that matter) changes that.

[Updated on: Fri, 18 April 2014 11:32]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Future of OpenVZ and ploop? [message #51483 is a reply to message #51335] Tue, 24 June 2014 19:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
devonblzx is currently offline  devonblzx
Messages: 127
Registered: December 2006
Senior Member
From: *dhcp.bycy.mi.charter.com
I personally think ploop makes OpenVZ better. Sure, some cases simfs is nice, but ploop makes management from the host node so much easier with the image file and snapshots, makes containers independent from the host's filesystem limitations and quotas, and eventually will lead to containers being able to easily run different file system types.

Maybe you can explain further what the disadvantages of ploop are?


http://static.openvz.org/userbars/openvz-user-2.png
ByteOnSite President
Re: Future of OpenVZ and ploop? [message #51602 is a reply to message #51336] Wed, 13 August 2014 21:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
vztester is currently offline  vztester
Messages: 16
Registered: August 2008
Junior Member
From: *vs.shawcable.net
Ales wrote on Fri, 18 April 2014 05:40
Nothing like a good rant, huh? Twisted Evil

But how does vzctl 4.7 force you into anything? Simply change the VE_LAYOUT variable in /etc/vz/vz.conf back to simfs to make simfs default again, or use the command line switch. Try looking at 'man vzctl'.

Ploop or no ploop, comparing OpenVZ (containers) with VMWare or KVM (full virtualization) is a bit like comparing a rally car with a 12-ton dump truck.

There are things you can't haul with a rally car. There are things you shouldn't do with a dump truck if you have a rally car available. That's about the jist of it. I fail to see how ploop (or simfs, for that matter) changes that.

Hello Ales

I don't think my OP was a rant but rather an observation and comment from a user perspective Smile

Thanks I didn't realize it was that simple as editing vz.conf but I think the fact that it changes the configuration is forcing it on the user/not good either way when it breaks existing simfs containers instantly. I doubt it's intended but there have been some growing pains I've observed with vzctl that others have encountered too.

I get what you're saying about the differences with virtualization but I really prefer simfs for development and fast deployment. If I were to use a flat file or LVM I'd only use KVM (Xen users will hate me but I don't see the point of Xen when there is KVM). It comes down to practical use and what works best for the user I guess and everyone has a different need.

With the above said it bugs me that many have stopped using OpenVZ, I think it's the best way to go because I still find it faster and easier out of the box compared to anything else (my vz containers have been more reliable than any other virtualization).


Re: Future of OpenVZ and ploop? [message #51603 is a reply to message #51483] Wed, 13 August 2014 21:15 Go to previous message
vztester is currently offline  vztester
Messages: 16
Registered: August 2008
Junior Member
From: *vs.shawcable.net
devonblzx wrote on Tue, 24 June 2014 15:40
I personally think ploop makes OpenVZ better. Sure, some cases simfs is nice, but ploop makes management from the host node so much easier with the image file and snapshots, makes containers independent from the host's filesystem limitations and quotas, and eventually will lead to containers being able to easily run different file system types.

Maybe you can explain further what the disadvantages of ploop are?

devon I think you make some good points especially with it not being limited by the filesystem (eg. number of files/directories and inodes etc..).

Anyway I think I explained the disadvantages above, it's easy to backup specific portions of a container or to deploy testing on them by directly accessing them via /vz/private/ctid. I just think that what I do is not very common so most won't see the value of simfs.


Previous Topic: Openvz and iptables modules , netfilter
Next Topic: Why the ploop become the default?
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Mon Jun 26 22:23:23 GMT 2017