.
That doesn't mean that lxc don't work with rhel7 kernel.
- Mail original -
De: dietmar diet...@proxmox.com
À: aderumier aderum...@odiso.com, pve-devel
pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com
Envoyé: Dimanche 29 Mars 2015 17:35:02
Objet: Re: [pve-devel] criu for lxc news on criu.org
So
original -
De: dietmar diet...@proxmox.com
À: datanom.net m...@datanom.net, pve-devel pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com
Envoyé: Dimanche 29 Mars 2015 18:10:17
Objet: Re: [pve-devel] criu for lxc news on criu.org
Yes - I started to remove the OpenVZ code from the jessie branch for that
reason
now
Envoyé: Dimanche 29 Mars 2015 17:35:02
Objet: Re: [pve-devel] criu for lxc news on criu.org
So it seem than LXC 1.1.0 support it now. (so live migration should works).
BTW, still no news of openvz 3.10 kernel git :(
Yes - I started to remove the OpenVZ code from the jessie branch
: [pve-devel] criu for lxc news on criu.org
Docker is best run inside a VM. It makes no sense to run such limited
containers
on the host.
Same opinion for me.
I'm begin to use docker in production, inside qemu guest. (mainly to deploy php
applications)
Docker is more about 1 process (apache
On 30.03.2015 08:30, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote:
LXC seems to slowly develop - the bad news is that RH just dropped support
for
it :-/
(at least the announced that in a press release).
Any link about this.
See the RHEL 7.1 release announcements, LXC looks not lika a first class
citizen.
@pve.proxmox.com
Envoyé: Lundi 30 Mars 2015 11:41:33
Objet: Re: [pve-devel] criu for lxc news on criu.org
On 30.03.2015 08:30, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote:
LXC seems to slowly develop - the bad news is that RH just dropped support
for
it :-/
(at least the announced that in a press release).
Any
On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 17:35:02 +0200 (CEST)
Dietmar Maurer diet...@proxmox.com wrote:
Yes - I started to remove the OpenVZ code from the jessie branch for that
reason
now.
LXC seems to slowly develop - the bad news is that RH just dropped support for
it :-/
(at least the announced that in
On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 17:35:02 +0200 (CEST)
Dietmar Maurer diet...@proxmox.com wrote:
LXC seems to slowly develop - the bad news is that RH just dropped support for
it :-/
This blog post from 2014-09 shows that LXC online migration is very near
to be available:
So it seem than LXC 1.1.0 support it now. (so live migration should works).
BTW, still no news of openvz 3.10 kernel git :(
Yes - I started to remove the OpenVZ code from the jessie branch for that reason
now.
LXC seems to slowly develop - the bad news is that RH just dropped support
Hi,
I just notice some change on the criu wiki
http://criu.org/LXC
http://criu.org/index.php?title=LXCdiff=2249oldid=1721
LXC upstream has begun to integrate checkpoint/restore support through the
lxc-checkpoint tool. This functionality has been in the recent released version
of LXC---LXC
As far as i understood the latest openvz news. It's dead.
And there will be a new virtuozzo open source edition but no longer openvz
stuff.
Greets,
Stefan
Excuse my typo sent from my mobile phone.
Am 29.03.2015 um 15:25 schrieb Alexandre DERUMIER aderum...@odiso.com:
Hi,
I just notice
What kernel would you suggest? My feeling is that RH kernel is still most
stable.
The kernel for Ubuntu server seems stable and well maintained. If you
choose 14.04 LTS then you receive maintenance until Q1 2019.
We do not have very good experiences with Ubuntu LTS kernels ...
I guess that is not really the problem, but Docker is intended to run
applications not full systems like the way it works for OpenVZ now.
It is even more limited. The idea is to run single binaries inside a docker
container.
But in real world, most applications need to run many different
Am 29.03.2015 um 20:18 schrieb Daniel Hunsaker danhunsa...@gmail.com:
There's Gentoo, which seemed pretty solid and stable while I was using it,
but I haven't looked at their kernels lately to see how they are faring...
But being a rolling-release OS, would that be at all suitable?
Martin
Good point. I'd forgotten they'd moved to that.
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015, 12:21 Waschbüsch IT-Services GmbH
serv...@waschbuesch.it wrote:
Am 29.03.2015 um 20:18 schrieb Daniel Hunsaker danhunsa...@gmail.com:
There's Gentoo, which seemed pretty solid and stable while I was using
it, but I
Check out the concept of 'linking' in Docker. You basically build multiple
containers and link them together. With links between containers, ports
will be opened and restricted to and between the linked containers. It's a
pretty neat concept. Basically, it becomes a clustered app.
I know that
If RedHat isn't going to support the technologies we need, and OpenVZ is
evaporating anyway, maybe we should consider a different kernel? One where
KVM and LXC, at least, will be fully supported? It seems that creating our
own team to manage backporting kernel patches ourselves would be
Why do you say that Docker is best run in a VM? On the contrary, I
think it would be great to run Docker natively on the Proxmox host and
have a visual representation of what container images have been
downloaded, which ones are running and using NoVNC to attached
directly to a container.
If RedHat isn't going to support the technologies we need, and OpenVZ is
evaporating anyway, maybe we should consider a different kernel? One where
KVM and LXC, at least, will be fully supported? It seems that creating our
own team to manage backporting kernel patches ourselves would be
On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 18:10:17 +0200 (CEST)
Dietmar Maurer diet...@proxmox.com wrote:
Docker is best run inside a VM. It makes no sense to run such limited
containers
on the host.
I agree. I was only referring to 'the bad news is that RH just dropped
support for it :-/ '
--
Hilsen/Regards
Why do you say that Docker is best run in a VM? On the contrary, I
think it would be great to run Docker natively on the Proxmox host and
have a visual representation of what container images have been
downloaded, which ones are running and using NoVNC to attached
directly to a
Unsafe in which way? From a security point of view of from a you might
completely botch your PVE installation? If the latter, that's OK on the
particular system I tried it on, as it's just a testing system. If the
former, then that's more concerning, but on the host I have it, it still
doesn't
I would like to see Docker integration in PVE, but me too don't really see
it how it should work. There are plenty of other projects that are better.
Maybe it would be good to evaluate whether Docker can be used for full
system containerization (if I remember correctly they allow mounting /),
but
Check out the concept of 'linking' in Docker. You basically build multiple
containers and link them together. With links between containers, ports
will be opened and restricted to and between the linked containers. It's a
pretty neat concept. Basically, it becomes a clustered app.
Now, from this
On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 16:26:32 +
Daniel Hunsaker danhunsa...@gmail.com wrote:
If RedHat isn't going to support the technologies we need, and OpenVZ is
evaporating anyway, maybe we should consider a different kernel? One where
KVM and LXC, at least, will be fully supported? It seems that
On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 19:11:42 +0200 (CEST)
Dietmar Maurer diet...@proxmox.com wrote:
What kernel would you suggest? My feeling is that RH kernel is still most
stable.
The kernel for Ubuntu server seems stable and well maintained. If you
choose 14.04 LTS then you receive maintenance until Q1
I'm just saying that in the same way OpenVZ is great, it would be equally
great to have similar functionality in PVE around Docker that has been
available for OpenVZ.
A docker container is very limited (compared to OpenVZ), and it simply makes
no sense to add a GUI for starting/stopping
We do not have very good experiences with Ubuntu LTS kernels ...
Then I can only think of Debian.
Sure, that is always an option.
___
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com
http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
28 matches
Mail list logo
