From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail202.messagelabs.com (mail202.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.227]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0A7C26B0047 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:19:34 -0400 (EDT) References: <1236891719.32630.14.camel@bahia> <20090312212124.GA25019@us.ibm.com> <604427e00903122129y37ad791aq5fe7ef2552415da9@mail.gmail.com> <20090313053458.GA28833@us.ibm.com> <20090313193500.GA2285@x200.localdomain> <1236981097.30142.251.camel@nimitz> <49BADAE5.8070900@cs.columbia.edu> <20090314081207.GA16436@elte.hu> From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:19:15 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20090314081207.GA16436@elte.hu> (Ingo Molnar's message of "Sat\, 14 Mar 2009 09\:12\:07 +0100") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: How much of a mess does OpenVZ make? ;) Was: What can OpenVZ do? Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Oren Laadan , Dave Hansen , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexey Dobriyan , linux-mm@kvack.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, mpm@selenic.com, Andrew Morton , Sukadev Bhattiprolu , Linus Torvalds , tglx@linutronix.de, xemul@openvz.org List-ID: Ingo Molnar writes: > * Eric W. Biederman 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. Eric -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org