--- On Tue, 8/12/08, Ed W <lists@wildgooses.com> wrote: > So does anyone have enough interest and capacity to try and > take some small bits of the vserver project and push it upstream? > Are there any reasonably uncontroversial bits to get some momentum? Vservers are cool, they provided lots of very nice features and are light weight to boot. However, I personally only use the simplest features of veservers. I want and use simple (primarily namespace) isolation and do not (yet) use any of the more advanced features such as cpu/memory limits... I suspect that I am not the only one in this boat. I like the simplicity of most of the management features but do not care as much about underlying implementations. I want a new vserver, I simply give it a name and an IP, done. Great tools, thanks! I suspect that much of what it takes to support my mode of operation is already well available in the mainline kernel: http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1410000/1400109/p104-bhattiprolu.pdf?key1=1400109&key2=3909558121&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=40226051&CFTOKEN=79653329 If that is indeed true, then would perhaps a separate approach not be porting vserver utilities to these new kernel features? How far would this approach go, and would it be enough for most of the basic namespace isolation. While this may conflict with the goal of getting advanced vserver functionality into mainline, it may be what many people are actually looking for? Could basic vserver support be implemented currently by simply patching the utilities to use new system calls? If not, what about identifying the important features to merge to mainline with this objective in mind? -Martin