From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail137.messagelabs.com (mail137.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CC336B003D for ; Sat, 14 Mar 2009 04:12:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 09:12:07 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: How much of a mess does OpenVZ make? ;) Was: What can OpenVZ do? Message-ID: <20090314081207.GA16436@elte.hu> References: <1236891719.32630.14.camel@bahia> <20090312212124.GA25019@us.ibm.com> <604427e00903122129y37ad791aq5fe7ef2552415da9@mail.gmail.com> <20090313053458.GA28833@us.ibm.com> <20090313193500.GA2285@x200.localdomain> <1236981097.30142.251.camel@nimitz> <49BADAE5.8070900@cs.columbia.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: Oren Laadan , Dave Hansen , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexey Dobriyan , linux-mm@kvack.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, mpm@selenic.com, Andrew Morton , Sukadev Bhattiprolu , Linus Torvalds , tglx@linutronix.de, xemul@openvz.org List-ID: * Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> In the OpenVZ case, they've at least demonstrated that the > >> filesystem can be moved largely with rsync. Unlinked files > >> need some in-kernel TLC (or /proc mangling) but it isn't > >> *that* bad. > > > > And in the Zap we have successfully used a log-based > > filesystem (specifically NILFS) to continuously snapshot the > > file-system atomically with taking a checkpoint, so it can > > easily branch off past checkpoints, including the file > > system. > > > > And unlinked files can be (inefficiently) handled by saving > > their full contents with the checkpoint image - it's not a > > big toll on many apps (if you exclude Wine and UML...). At > > least that's a start. > > Oren we might want to do a proof of concept implementation > like I did with network namespaces. That is done in the > community and goes far enough to show we don't have horribly > nasty code. The patches and individual changes don't need to > be quite perfect but close enough that they can be considered > for merging. > > For the network namespace that seems to have made a big > difference. > > I'm afraid in our clean start we may have focused a little too > much on merging something simple and not gone far enough on > showing that things will work. > > After I had that in the network namespace and we had a clear > vision of the direction. We started merging the individual > patches and things went well. I'm curious: what is the actual end result other than good looking code? In terms of tangible benefits to the everyday Linux distro user. [This is not meant to be sarcastic, i'm truly curious.] Ingo -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org