Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964794AbWC1XEJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Mar 2006 18:04:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964795AbWC1XEJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Mar 2006 18:04:09 -0500 Received: from watts.utsl.gen.nz ([202.78.240.73]:51597 "EHLO watts.utsl.gen.nz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964794AbWC1XEI (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Mar 2006 18:04:08 -0500 Subject: Re: [RFC] Virtualization steps From: Sam Vilain To: Nick Piggin Cc: Kirill Korotaev , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <4428FEA5.9020808@yahoo.com.au> References: <44242A3F.1010307@sw.ru> <44242D4D.40702@yahoo.com.au> <4428FB90.5000601@sw.ru> <4428FEA5.9020808@yahoo.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 11:04:18 +1200 Message-Id: <1143587058.6325.54.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1990 Lines: 52 On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 19:15 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > Kirill Korotaev wrote: > > First of all, what it does which low level virtualization can't: > > - it allows to run 100 containers on 1GB RAM > > (it is called containers, VE - Virtual Environments, > > VPS - Virtual Private Servers). > > - it has no much overhead (<1-2%), which is unavoidable with hardware > > virtualization. For example, Xen has >20% overhead on disk I/O. > Are any future hardware solutions likely to improve these problems? No, not all of them. > > OS kernel virtualization > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Is this considered secure enough that multiple untrusted VEs are run > on production systems? Yes, hosting providers have been deploying this technology for years. > What kind of users want this, who can't use alternatives like real > VMs? People who want low overhead and the administrative benefits of only running a single kernel and not umpteen. For instance visibility from the host into the guests' filesystems is a huge advantage, even if the performance benefits can be magically overcome somehow. > > Summary of previous discussions on LKML > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Have their been any discussions between the groups pushing this > virtualization, and important kernel developers who are not part of > a virtualization effort? Ie. is there any consensus about the > future of these patches? Plenty recently. Check for threads involving (the people on the CC list to the head of this thread) this year. Comparing Xen/VMI with Vserver/OpenVZ is comparing apples with orchards. May I refer you to some slides for a talk I gave at Linux.conf.au about Vserver: http://utsl.gen.nz/talks/vserver/slide17a.html Sam. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/