Messages in this thread |  | | From | John Kelly <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/9] namespaces: Introduction | Date | Fri, 19 May 2006 15:45:43 -0400 |
| |
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/
|  |