Paul Menage wrote: > I made sure to check [...]wikipedia.org[...] when this argument started ... > :-) >
Wikipedia?! That's not a referen[...] oh bugger it. I've vented enough today and we're on the same page now I think. >> This is the classic terminology problem between substance and function. >> ie, some things share characteristics but does that mean they are the >> same thing? >> > > Aren't you arguing my side here? My point is that what I'm trying to > add with "containers" (or whatever name we end up using) can't easily > be subsumed into the "namespace" concept, and you're arguing that they > should go into nsproxy because they share some characteristics. > Ok, they share this characteristic with namespaces: that they group processes. So, they conceptually hang off task_struct. But we put them on ns_proxy because we've got this vague notion that things might be better that way. >> about this you still insist on calling this sub-system specific stuff >> the "container", >> > Uh, no. I'm trying to call a *grouping* of processes a container. > Ok, so is this going to supplant the namespaces too? >> and then go screaming that I am wrong and you are right >> on terminology. >> > > Actually I asked if you/Eric had better suggestions. > Cool, let's review them. Me, 07921311:38+12: > This would suggesting re-write this patchset, part 2 as a "CPUSet > namespace", part 4 as a "CPU scheduling namespace", parts 5 and 6 as > "Resource Limits Namespace" (drop this "BeanCounter" brand), and of > course part 7 falls away. Me, 07022110:58+12: > Did you like the names I came up with in my original reply? > - CPUset namespace for CPU partitioning > - Resource namespaces: > - cpusched namespace for CPU > - ulimit namespace for memory > - quota namespace for disk space > - io namespace for disk activity > - etc Ok, there's nothing original or useful there; I'm obviously quite deliberately still punting on the issue. Eric, 07030718:32-07: > Pretty much. For most of the other cases I think we are safe referring > to them as resource controls or resource limits. I know that roughly > covers what cpusets and beancounters and ckrm currently do. Let's go back in time to the thread I referred to: Me, 06032209:08+12 and nearby posts > - "vserver" spelt in full > - family > - container > - jail > - task_ns (sort for namespace) > Using the term "box" and ID term "boxid": > create_space - creates a new space and "hashes" it Kirill, 06032418:36+03: > I propose to use "namespace" naming. > 1. This is already used in fs. > 2. This is what IMHO suites at least OpenVZ/Eric > 3. it has good acronym "ns". Right. So, now I'll also throw into the mix: - resource groups (I get a strange feeling of déjà vú there) - supply chains (think supply and demand) - accounting classes Do any of those sound remotely close? If not, your turn :) And do we bother changing IPC namespaces or let that one slide? Sam. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ ckrm-tech mailing list https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
