Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction

[Kirill Korotaev <dev@sw.ru>]

>>> We are never going to form a consensus if all of the people doing 
>>> implementations don't talk.
>>
>> Speaking of which - it would be interesting to get Kirill's
>> comments on Eric's patchset ;)
I'll do comment.

>> Once we know what's good and bad about both patchsets, we'll
>> be a lot closer to knowing what exactly should go upstream.
I'm starting to think that nothing in upstream can be better for all of 
us :)

> Let's compare approaches of patchsets before the patchsets themselves.
> It seems to be, should we:
> 
>   A) make a general form of virtualising PIDs, and hope this assists
>      later virtualisation efforts (Eric's patch)
> 
>   B) make a general form of containers/jails/vservers/vpses, and layer
>      PID virtualisation on top of it somewhere (as in openvz, vserver)
 >
> I can't think of any real use cases where you would specifically want A)
> without B).
Exactly! All these patches for A) look weird for me without containers 
itself. A try to make half-solution which is bad.

> Also, the problem space in B) is now very well explored.  To start with
> A) would mean to throw away 4+ years of experience at this approach
> (just counting vserver and variants - not FreeBSD Jail, etc).  Trying to
> re-base B) atop a massive refactoring and new patch like A) would incur
> a lot of work; however fitting it into B) is natural and solved
> conceptually and in practice, with the only drawback I see being that
> the use cases mentioned above wouldn't suffer from the side-effects of
> B).
Have you saw my patches?
This is B) :) This is what we should start with IMHO.
Having a containers and isolation all these talks about A) will be much 
more precise.

Kirill