> On Sep 2, 2016, at 4:02 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg <lyn...@orthanc.ca> wrote: > > >> On Sep 2, 2016, at 3:00 PM, Bakul Shah <ba...@bitblocks.com> wrote: >> >> Separately, an interesting project would be to implement plan9 >> sandboxes (ala linux "containers" or freebsd "jails)" so that >> one can easily set up a cluster of plan9 boxes. > > Namespaces would make that an easy application, no? There is no required > user/kernel interface in 9P, so why not?
Namespaces solve part of the problem. For better isolation you'd need more. Can multiple sandboxes share the same physical network while maintaining their own IP address? Can one sandbox hog all memory or all CPUs or all network bandwidth or all disk space?