On Monday, January 18, 2016 06:07:33 AM Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 1:44 AM, J. Roeleveld <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Monday, January 18, 2016 02:02:27 AM lee wrote: > >> You would have a full VM for each user? > > > > Yes > > > >> That would be a huge waste of resources, > > > > Diskspace and CPU can easily be overcommitted. > > > >... > > > > The biggest reason why I don't use KVM is the lack of full snapshot > > functionality. Snapshotting disks is nice, but you end up with an unclean- > > shutdown situation and anything that's not yet committed to disk is gone. > > Seems like on linux a straightforward design would be spinning up > containers on demand, with snapshots underneath. Granted, somebody > still needs to build it, but spinning up a container per user isn't > much more resource-intensive than just running x2go with multiple > users in a single namespace which is how it works today. It certainly > would be less wasteful than a full VM. They also launch and shutdown > super-fast. > > Of course, this is a linux-only solution (or BSD I believe). You're > not going to be able to do this with OSX/Windows guests.
A similar solution is generally done with VDI implementations as well. Replace "container" with VM and you have the same. -- Joost
