On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 10:30:28AM -0200, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote: > Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that libvirt or Fedora did anything in > respect to the mountpoint themselves. But that they are supporting or > planning to support cgroups. And I think that one time we will need to > sort the problem of the mountpoint, either let the applications mount it > (in this case, libvirt) or the system do it (Fedora install, Debian > initscripts, et al). > > I have some experience with lxc tools from http://lxc.sf.net/ and these > tools also look up the mountpoint at /proc/mounts. So it is up to the > system or the user to mount it.
That's good. We settled on letting mount points be OS / admin defined in libvirt, because we felt libvirt shouldn't try to impose a mount policy on a resource that will have many users & we are able to work with whatever mount hierarchy the admin / OS decided to setup. > > Putting new mount points in / is not really acceptable, so that rules > > out the first two. /opt is just totally wrong, since that is intended > > for add on software packages. /dev/ feels a little odd, since it is > > not really device nodes, but perhaps that doesn't matter. So my pref > > would be something in /dev/cgroups or /sys/cgroups > > My suggestions were /proc/cgroup, /sys/cgroup, /cgroup or /dev/cgroup. I > sent the problems with the former two, and the rationale for the latter > two in a previous message. > > I agree that /opt/ is not the place for it (and that's the one I called > 'funny'). I've head some people telling that /dev/ is for devices, but I > can't see a problem (/dev/log is a socket and it is there, the FHS > refers to special files). > > /proc/ and /sys/ are two good options if the kernel does not put anything > else there. /proc/cgroups already exist, for example. > > Could you please give your rationale why / is not really acceptable? Just a general preference is to not continually add more ad-hoc top level directories to /, when there are other places in the filesystem hierarchy that are available, such as /sys or /proc. > > I also think 'cgroups' is a better name than 'containers', since > > 'containers' is refering to just one specific use case. > > Agreed on this one, although I still prefer the singular (it is also the > name of the filesystem type). Either singular / plural sounds fine to me Regards, Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :| -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org