containers development plans
pj at sgi.com
Tue Jul 10 00:38:08 PDT 2007
Paul M wrote:
> How about if we adopt "process containers" or "task containers" as the
> term for the generic container framework, to distinguish from more
> general user-space containers?
As I just spent the last hour writing in another reply (not noticing
your message in my queue), I suspect that these are not best called
'process' (or 'task') containers, but rather 'resource' containers.
You provide what look like more good examples of why this is so,
with your mention of various proposals for managing network traffic,
which (I'm unsure of this) seem not to bind per-task, but per-link
or some such.
Do the various 'subsystems' that you're thinking of correspond to the
various resources that we're virtualizing?
Separate question -- what do you mean by 'the generic container
framework' ... I'm clueless.
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <pj at sgi.com> 1.925.600.0401
More information about the Containers