Thanks Bertl...appreciate it... On 03/26/14 13:57, Herbert Poetzl wrote: > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 01:48:25PM +0100, Tor Rune Skoglund wrote: > >> I came across this presentation embedded on this page: >> > >> http://bodenr.blogspot.no/2014/03/linux-containers-building-blocks.html >> > >> On page 31, there is an overview of various virtualization >> methods. What is community views on the comments made on >> linux-vserver? >> > I'd say he didn't do his research properly. > > First, we have been there long before OpenVZ, so the > 'well seasoned' listed there is dubious. > > Second, we are (now) based on cgroups and namespaces, > so the summary there is wrong as well. > > Further ... > - we have python bindings as well > - there are some (outdated) panels > - I would definitely consider it more stable than OVZ :) > > But obviously it is biased (towards Docker) and just > takes the fact that OVZ now is owned by Parallels as > a 'sign of stability' :) > > >> It is/was my impression that current linux-vserver "builds" on >> cgroups and namespaces features from lxc in the standard kernel >> --- and also that new lxc implementation gradually replace >> "custom" linux-vserver implementations? >> > Completely correct. Whenever some mainline feature gets > useable, we try to incorporate it as soon as possible. > > >> Reason for me asking, is that we are building a system based on >> linux-vserver, and likes to have some confirmation that we have >> not chosen the wrong technology. In that context, a "merge" of >> linux-vserver into improving lxc tools in the very long run, is >> a very acceptable roadmap for us. >> > I don't think you've made the wrong choice, but obviously > I'm biased as well :) > > best, > Herbert > > >> - Tor Rune Skoglund, trs@swi.n >>