lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [May]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/9] namespaces: Introduction
Date
On Fri, 19 May 2006 11:28:08 -0700, "Hua Zhong" <hzhong@gmail.com>
wrote:

> how many virtualization technologies Linux should support?

> Particularly, does it need to support both OS-level virtualization

If users want it. I do.


> It seems at least the VM approach is much less risky. It might be helpful
> if someone could explain why we need both.

A better question is, why can't we have both?

I don't have unlimited memory and disk. I need to conserve my
resources as much as possible.

The one-kernel approach saves memory, leaving more for applications.
That's important to me. I don't need to run multiple kernels, and I
don't want to. I only want multiple secure operating environments.

The one-kernel approach also makes it easy to have all VPS in one disk
partition, without the performance penalty of file backed I/O.

If the VM approach is truly less risky, seems to me the Xen/VMware
developers should be able to succeed independently, despite changes
made for in-kernel virtualization.

I'm glad someone asked a question I could answer. :-)


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-05-19 21:49    [W:0.064 / U:6.516 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site