Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751454AbWETA7U (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 May 2006 20:59:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751457AbWETA7U (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 May 2006 20:59:20 -0400 Received: from watts.utsl.gen.nz ([202.78.240.73]:50064 "EHLO watts.utsl.gen.nz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751454AbWETA7U (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 May 2006 20:59:20 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] namespaces: Introduction From: Sam Vilain To: Andrey Savochkin Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dev@sw.ru, herbert@13thfloor.at, devel@openvz.org, ebiederm@xmission.com, xemul@sw.ru, haveblue@us.ibm.com, clg@fr.ibm.com, "Serge E. Hallyn" In-Reply-To: <20060519174757.A17609@castle.nmd.msu.ru> References: <20060518154700.GA28344@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <20060518103430.080e3523.akpm@osdl.org> <20060519174757.A17609@castle.nmd.msu.ru> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 12:16:04 +1200 Message-Id: <1148084165.7103.14.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: 1575 Lines: 34 On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 17:47 +0400, Andrey Savochkin wrote: > We can start with presenting and merging the most interesting part, network > containers. We discuss details, possible approaches, and related subsystems, > until networking is finished to its utmost detail. > This will create an example of virtualization of a non-trivial subsystem, > and we will have to agree on basic principles of virtualization of related > subsystems like proc. [...] > What do people think about this plan? Network is an interesting one because you have multiple solutions - the very simple approach of network binding (as used by Jacques Gelina's original IP vhost work from December 1997), and network virtualisation. That virtualisation itself can be broken down into providing merely virtual interfaces (so that, for instance, you can have independent lo interfaces in the virtual servers) as in Vserver 2.1.x, or providing a completely virtualised network stack, as in Vserver ngnet (and possibly OpenVZ?). Each solution performs the virtualisation at a different level, and has incrementally higher orders of inefficiency and maintenance requirements. Yet none of them are essentially better or worse than the others. So, we might end up with all three eventually - but binding alone is the simplest and still extremely useful. 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/