Fri, 10 Dec 2010 15:18:15 +1100 Less intrusive indeed - simplicity matters! I forgot to mention another reason why I've chosen VServer: OpenVZ kernel 2.6.32 become available only recently. VServer supported 2.6.32 for a while - much much longer. So a year ago I decided to use recent kernel with KSM rather older OpenVZ kernel. OpenVZ's adoption of new kernels is quite slow - perhaps just too slow... Regards, Onlyjob. On 10 December 2010 14:06, Herbert Poetzl <herbert@13thfloor.at> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 07:14:36PM +0100, mourad.alia@orange-ftgroup.com wrote: >> >> De : ALIA Mourad NRS >> Date d'envoi : jeudi 9 décembre 2010 19:14 >> À : vserver@list.linux-vserver.org >> Objet : VServer vs OpenVZ. >> I made a mistake in my text : > >> " VServer is more tooled, simpler, >> virtualise the network, supports hot VM migration". > >> to be replaced by : > >> " OpenVZ is more tooled, > > there might be more tools, but what can you do with > that tools you can't accomplish in Linux-VServer? > >> simpler, > > definitely depends on the point of view ... > >> virtualise the network, > > you can have that with network namespaces in recent > Linux-VServer (and mainline) kernels > >> supports hot VM migration". > > google the archives for my statement on that if you > really like to know, but IMHO it's a pure marketing > feature which doesn't really make sense in production > > besides that, here are a few points to consider in > advantage of Linux-VServer: > > less intrusive: > the Linux-VServer patch against 2.6.36 is 753K > the OpenVZ patch for 2.6.36 does not exist; the > patch for 2.6.32 (seems to be the latest) 4.9M > note that the features are roughly the same > > more performant: > Linux-VServer has no measureable overhead for > network isolation and allows the full performance > (OpenVZ report 1-3% overhead, not verified) > > better integrated: > Linux-VServer is around for 10 years now and > supports all Linux platforms and architectures > (OpenVZ supports only 6 and mainly RH(EL)) > > all other points (true independant open source > for example) have been already covered by other > replies ... > > best, > Herbert > >> Sorry for that, >> Cheers, > >> -- Mourad > >> Dear VServers, > >> As introduced in my previsous post, wa are about using VServer to emaulate P2P like VoIP peers. This is used for sacalability and performance testing of our VoIP application. >> >> Here are our needs : >> >> A) We want to have a maximum of VMs per server. Our server are 24 hyperthreded machine with 6 physical network interfaces : >> IP Network Server NSN2U (Ballenger-NH) >> Single 600W AC PSU >> Memory 24 GB >> CPU Dual Xeon E5645 >> SATA HDD 500GB >> Ethernet I/O Module (four Gigabit rear ports) >> >> B) Each VM hosts a JVM which run one or many instances of our applications. >> >> C) The applications (VoIP peers) communicate basically through multicast. >> >> D) Each n VMs (m applications) will use one given Eth physical interface to distribute correctly the network traffic. >> >> Currently, there is a hot discussion in my departement on OpenVZ vs VServer : " VServer is more tooled, simpler, virtualise the network, supports hot VM migration". >> >> What do you think about this versus ? >> >> Any particular advise towards my use case ? >> >> Thank you for your response and support, >> >> Kind regards, >> >> -- Mourad ALIA >> Software Architect >> OBS >> >> ********************************* >> This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees. >> Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited. >> Messages are susceptible to alteration. >> France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. >> If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender. >> ******************************** >