On 16/10/12 12:49, Trent W. Buck wrote: > Russell Coker <[email protected]> writes: > >>> My fallback would be NFS shared ZFS in the domU - much cheaper because >>> you only have one ARC, set of checksums, etc, to manage, but with the >>> added bonus of NFS between the domU and dom0. Fun times. >>> >>> Are you sure that LXC or OpenVZ wouldn't better fit your needs than >>> Xen? You trade off marginally less isolation between containers for >>> the simplicity of having a single kernel image - so native ZFS >>> performance. >> >> That's a possibility. What is the support for them like in Debian/Wheezy? > > I am currently running LXC on 2.6.32, to separate services (e.g. apache, > postfix/dovecot, nsd3), on consolidated hardware. IME LXC as at 2.6.32 > was inadequate for this task -- in particular, per-container resource > allocation and encapsulation (e.g. of /sys) was not ready. > > Wheezy will be 3.2. I have not done any significant work on LXC on a > post-2.6.32 system, but AFAICT it has vastly improved, especially in the > areas that annoyed me. IMO LXC on 3.2 is definitely worth at least > considering.
Just chipping in with a quick "Yes, LXC is good". I've been running it for a while now, it's been great. As Trent suspected, I can confirm it's improved vastly by the era of 3.2 kernels. You really want an up-to-date lxc userland. A lot of things used to be annoying and fiddly and not-quite-work-right, but seem to have been pretty good for the past year. The defaults for new containers are more sensible. I haven't used the libvirtd userland stuff at all; had a quick peer at it once, and it seemed to be very limited/incomplete.. don't know if it's improved much yet. It would be nice if the other lxc userland had a GUI and easier tools for people to use though. (I don't mind doing it on the command line myself) _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
