On 7/10/07, Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kirill, Serge, et al, > > Is it fair to say then that Paul Menage's containers are primarily > for the purposes of managing resources, while namespaces are for the > purposes of managing identifiers?
Sort of - but one thing that we're trying to figure out how to do nicely is integrate namespaces into the container filesystem (this was the purpose of the post_clone() container API callback) so that we can both get a filesystem view of task namespaces, and combine namespaces with other process container subsystems. > > We've got some resources, like cpu cycles, memory bytes, network > bandwidth, that we want to allocate and account for differentially > by groups of tasks -- that's Menage's containers. Plus things that aren't necessarily resource controllers, such as the container freezer, or permissions on network ports, or userspace OOM handlers. I don't think that lumping all of these in together as "resource containers" is the right thing to do. > virtualization efforts, of which my cpusets is the granddaddy example, > being generalized by Paul Menage with his container patches. The other > work is, as Serge actually termed it in the body of his post, better > called 'namespaces'. Purely within the kernel, yes. The more general encompassing effort to have a combined kernel/userspace solution for virtual servers is also referred to as "containers". (And to be fair that term was already in use when I started using the term "process containers" to refer to the specific framework in the kernel that handles process tracking). Paul ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
