How much of a mess does OpenVZ make? ;) Was: What can OpenVZ do?

Eric W. Biederman ebiederm at
Thu Mar 19 14:19:15 PDT 2009

Ingo Molnar <mingo at> writes:

> * Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm at> 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.]

Of the network namespace?  Sorry I'm not certain what you are asking.


More information about the Containers mailing list