[ckrm-tech] containers development plans

Serge E. Hallyn serge at hallyn.com
Tue Jul 10 14:30:45 PDT 2007


Quoting Serge E. Hallyn (serge at hallyn.com):
> Quoting Paul Jackson (pj at sgi.com):
> > Kirill, Serge, et al,
> > 
> > Is it fair to say then that Paul Menage's containers are primarily
> > for the purposes of managing resources, while namespaces are for the
> > purposes of managing identifiers?
> > 
> > We've got some resources, like cpu cycles, memory bytes, network
> > bandwidth, that we want to allocate and account for differentially
> > by groups of tasks -- that's Menage's containers.
> > 
> > We've got some system wide namespaces, like process id's, that we
> > want to virtualize, for more flexible uses -- these are the name-
> > space containers.
> > 
> > In Serge's opening post to this thread, he wrote:
> > 	1. namespaces
> > 	2. process containers
> > 	3. checkpoint/restart
> > 
> > Are the 'process containers' of item (2) the containers of Paul Menage?
> 
> Yup.
> 
> > If so, then I propose that this thread is misnamed.  It should not be
> > "containers development plans", but rather "namespace, container and
> > c/r development plans."  And if so, there is really no conflict over
> > the use of the word 'container' -- that applies just to the resource
> > virtualization efforts, of which my cpusets is the granddaddy example,
> > being generalized by Paul Menage with his container patches.  The other
> > work is, as Serge actually termed it in the body of his post, better
> > called 'namespaces'.
> > 
> > Perhaps the confusion arose from looking for a single word to encompass
> > all three parts, listed above, of this work.  The efforts have some strong
> 
> Not exactly - the "confusion" arose because the ksummit committee wanted
> to hear about "containers", and agreed that by that term they mean each
> of those three.  So I kept the term 'containers' in the roadmap title,
> but we can change that if it's preferred.

I plan to keep the thread titled 'containers' precisely because *I*
don't care whose work gets renamed, while several other people on both
sides care so strongly, so it would seem rude for me to make that
decision de-facto in this way.

Maybe renaming one or both projects should be listed in the roadmap as a
todo :)

thanks,
-serge


More information about the Containers mailing list