Paul M wrote:
> How about if we adopt "process containers" or "task containers" as the
> term for the generic container framework, to distinguish from more
> general user-space containers?
As I just spent the last hour writing in another reply (not noticing
your message in my queue), I suspect that these are not best called
'process' (or 'task') containers, but rather 'resource' containers.
You provide what look like more good examples of why this is so,
with your mention of various proposals for managing network traffic,
which (I'm unsure of this) seem not to bind per-task, but per-link
or some such.
Do the various 'subsystems' that you're thinking of correspond to the
various resources that we're virtualizing?
Separate question -- what do you mean by 'the generic container
framework' ... I'm clueless.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1.925.600.0401
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
ckrm-tech mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
