On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 16:24, onlyjob <[email protected]> wrote: > No, no, please not OpenVZ. It is certainly not for beginners. > Better use VServer instead. > I used both, first OpenVZ (but was never really happy with it) and then > VServer.
Have VServer added network virtualization yet? Last time I used it they hadn't, so your containers didn't have, for example, the loopback interface, or a 127.0.0.1 address they could use. That made for a constant, ongoing pain in the neck compared to OpenVZ which *did* look like that. Every single distribution package that assumed, for example, that it could talk to 'localhost' would do the wrong thing. Ah. I see the experimental releases do add support for a virtualized loopback adapter, along with IPv6, which is nice, and probably addresses my biggest operational issue with VServer. > There are number of benefits of VServer over OpenVZ: > > * GPL License http://openvz.org/documentation/licenses The OpenVZ software — the kernel and and the user-level tools — is licensed under GNU GPL version 2. It is also notable that a bunch of the upstream, in-kernel code *is* from OpenVZ, including a bunch of the namespace support that underpins the LXC implementations and, these days, OpenVZ itself. Can you tell me where you got the impression that OpenVZ was not GPL? > * Better kernel support: > OpenVZ kernel 2.6.32 become available only recently. > VServer supported 2.6.32 for a while - much much longer. OpenVZ's > adoption of new kernels is quite slow - perhaps just too slow... FWIW, because their upstream kernel is based on the RHEL kernel releases, we often found that they had sufficiently recent drivers despite the older core version. This is a genuine drawback, however, and makes it hard to have upstream support if you are not using RHEL as your base system (eg: Debian, Ubuntu.) Er, also, am I looking at the right place? I went to check out the "feature equivalent" stuff because I am quite interested in keeping up, and the linux-vserver site tells me that the latest stable release is vs2.2.0.7 for 2.6.22.19 – they have an *experimental* patch for 2.6.32, but I presume there must be some other stable release for the .32 series or something? [...] > * more performant: > Linux-VServer has no measureable overhead for > network isolation and allows the full performance > (OpenVZ report 1-3% overhead, not verified) Our measurements show pretty much identical performance cost for either tool, FWIW, and we generally found that either of them was able to exhaust the IOPS or memory capacity of a modern server well before they could make a couple of percent of CPU overhead matter. (KVM-like tools were far worse for this, of course, because of their increased IO and memory overheads.) [...] > * Easier. I don't agree here: other than the more modern set of front ends (like Proxmox) for OpenVZ, I never found there to be a detectable difference in tools overheads between VServer and OpenVZ, and OpenVZ was actually a bit easier to fiddle with outside the rules and all. Regards, Daniel -- ✉ Daniel Pittman <[email protected]> ⌨ [email protected] (XMPP) ☎ +1 503 893 2285 ♻ made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
