[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openvz-devel
Subject:    [Devel] Re: Containers vs. OpenVZ
From:       xemul () parallels ! com (Pavel Emelyanov)
Date:       2010-08-23 9:38:02
Message-ID: 4C72417A.6060005 () parallels ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 08/23/2010 01:08 PM, Peter Volkov wrote:
> ? ???, 23/08/2010 ? 11:44 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov ?????:
>> And no - you cannot replace openvz with lxc yet for many reasons.
> 
> Pavel, I think lot's of people will benefit if you summarize important
> points of differences. Yea, I have my own list but I'd better listen to
> knowledgeable people first ;)

:)

OK, but first of all - the list I provide is just the situation we currently
have that will change in the future, not some fundamental problem. Besides, I
can be not aware of some recent changes, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

So, the benefits of the OpenVZ against LXC.

1. Checkpointing. That's the biggest difference.
2. Resource management. Currently in LCX you may only have a per container
   user memory management. In OpenVZ we control much more resources like
   kernel memory or networking buffers
3. Entering a container. I've seen many approaches of how to join a foreign
   container (sys_hijack, sys_nsfd, sys_cloneat, etc) but AFAIK none of them
   is included in the mainline.
4. 2-level disk quota. We're trying to push one into the Al's tree however ;)
5. Bells-and-whistles like NFS/NFSd virtualization, FUSE virtualization, etc
6. Containers management like vzlist tool or various /proc files, that help
   you to track containers state and resources

> With best regards,

_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]