On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 1:55 AM, Rod Whitworth <glis...@witworx.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 20:49:37 -0600, Amit Kulkarni wrote:
>>don't have a subscription but for those who do, enjoy.
> But http://lwn.net/Articles/524920/ will give you the idea without $$$

"rleigh, it's really not as easy as you think. Making the event loop
portable to kqueue is complex, but doable, I can agree to that. -- But
the trouble starts beyond that. The BSDs don't have anything like
cgroups. *There's no way to attach a name to a group of processes, in
a hierarchal, secure way*. And you cannot emulate this. (And no, don't
say "BSD jail" now, because that is something very different). But
this already is at the very core of systemd. It's how systemd tracks

how can someone write this and not explain why a process managing
pgroups can't achieve the same results?

pgroups is going to be the first alternative for someone instinctively
looking for a portable alternative, so i'm genuinely interested in
knowing why they've discarded the idea

i am, however, aware of differences *unrelated* to writing a systemd
like appliance. pgroups do not provide per item hostname and other
virtualization facilities in freebsd jails/linux cgroups, but what
about *relevant* differences? something weak like "the index for for
cgroups is wide enough to fit an UUID"? in other words, something that
*doesn't* require a completely new api?

Reply via email to