Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 12:16:35 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kernel level virtualisation requirements. Message-ID: <20071014121635.5adc1f19@deskjail> In-Reply-To: <47109F59.30602@quip.cz> References: <470E5BFB.4050903@elischer.org> <47109F59.30602@quip.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> (Sat, 13 Oct 2007 12:35:05 +0200): > Julian Elischer wrote: > [...] > > I'd like to be able to say.. > > I want to share the filesystem, and unix domain sockets but have a > > separate routing domain for my processes, or maybe just > > for some sockets. But someone else may want to have > > complete separation with everything up to and including > > separate userID spaces. > > > > My question to you, the reader, is: > > what aspects of virtualisation (the appearance of multiple instances > > of some resource) would you like to see in the system? > > > > Even a discussion as to how to frame this question is up for discussion. > > > > We don't even have a taxonomy to discus the issue. > > > > Julian > > It would be nice to have something from vserver, something from zones, > from xen, from jails etc. > From my point of view: > > CPU limits - specified as relative part of shares (container can get > more CPU power if CPU is not 100% loaded) or set to absolute (container > can't get more than specified CPU power, so one can use it to test > applications on slow CPUs etc.) > > Memory limits - same as CPU > > Disk - it would be nice if I can set how many disk space each container > can use. (with similar interface as disk quotas - soft+hard limits and > space+inodes). Maybe setting of disk I/O in similar style as CPU and > memory limits above. You can have something like this already with zfs. Just for information, it doesn't mean we don't need to talk about this point. > UIDs - independent UIDs in containers. In relation to UIDs, one can use > disk quotas inside containers. Can you please clarify what you mean here? Are you talking about the current quota support and how it handles UIDs on the host? If your disk proposal above is implemented, I can imagine that the current quota stuff is independent from this and wouldn't need a decoupling from UIDs in a jail from the UIDs on the host. > Network bandwidth - same as CPU and memory We have this already with dummynet and/or pf, don't we? Bye, Alexander. -- You can press Ctrl-D to quickly exit from a shell, or logout from a login shell. -- Konstantinos Konstantinidis <kkonstan@duth.gr> http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071014121635.5adc1f19>