On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 12:42:07PM +0200, Alex Lyashkov wrote: > ? ???, 27.02.2004, ? 11:54, Thomas Gelf ?????: > > Hi Alex, > > > > I've had a look at freevps (just downloaded the source, didn't try it > > out). vifconfig seems to be a very cool thing, do you consider it > > possible to adapt somthing like that to the linux-vserver project? > What is adapt to the linux-vsever project ? porting ? > For it need port all my network patches and change some structure linux > vserver core. If Herbert do it....
you are very welcome to help with that ... as a matter of fact, I was hoping that you and Say would do the 2.6 networking stuff for linux-vserver > > I believe that creating freevps was a great work, but I prefer the > > vserver project for the following reasons: > > > > - I'll not go to use a redhad-like 2.4.18-x kernel on my debian servers, > > I prefer patches to the latest stable kernel, I'm using 2.4.25 at the > > moment and I'll switch to v2.6 as soon as possible, at the moment I'm > > missig support for ctx-based disklimits in kernel v2.6 > 2.4.18-27 more 2.5/2.6 when 2.4. It`s kernel based on -ac patchset. > Whis many fixes and additions. > Next release be based on RH AS -9.0.1 kernel at current do adapt new > memory accounting to his mm subsystem. well nothing wrong with focusing on one distro for one arch, but linux-vserver should be arch and distro agnostic ... > > - linux-vserver is a community project and this community seems to be > > very active! > I see at last time community only finding Herberts errors :-\ maybe this means that your software doesn't have any bugs to find, maybe it's jsut perfect ;) > > In my opinion the best way for both projects would be to merge now, as > > both projects are undergoing deep changes for kernel v2.6 (has been > > discussed earlier on this list): > > > > - find a common solution for the networking stuff, I prefer the FreeVPS > > way > > - find a common way for handling ctx-based disk/memory-limits and quotas > > - ... best, Herbert > > Am Fre, den 27.02.2004 schrieb Alex Lyashkov um 09:11: > > > ? ???, 27.02.2004, ? 10:03, Thomas Gelf ?????: > > > > is it possible to realize this? > > > > how much work would it be? > > > > > > > > the first part (tun/tap interface == virtual eth0 inside the vserver, > > > > bridge them to real eth0, allow CAP_NET_ADMIN for the visible interfaces > > > > only) should be no problem, what about per-context routing/firewalling? > > > > > > > VServer not have it. > -- > Alex Lyashkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Home > _______________________________________________ > Vserver mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver _______________________________________________ Vserver mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
