On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Jochen Wiedmann <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Fajar A. Nugraha <[email protected]> wrote: > >> You're missing a lot by sticking with c6. Especially if you stick with >> the default kernel. > > What alternative are you suggesting? This is a VM, so I'm flexible.
Well, https://linuxcontainers.org/ says "Project sponsored by Canonical Ltd". And there's also http://blog.dustinkirkland.com/2016/02/zfs-is-fs-for-containers-in-ubuntu-1604.html Anything with recent-enough kernel should work. I like ubuntu since it's easiest to get lxc working there (obviously), but any distro with recent-enough kernel should be able to support most newer features (e.g. unprivileged containers, additional security using apparmor/seccomp). A c6 host should be able to run sysvinit and upstart-based priviliged containers (i.e. root in container has the same id as root in host), but it won't provide the usual security and restriction that you're used to in VMs (for example, the host might set CPU/memory limit for a container, but a privileged host would be able to reset that limit). And you won't be able to run systemd-based containers either (those need lxcfs) As for the bridge, newer lxc installations (e.g. 1.1.5 or 2 beta) will create lxcbr0 which behaves similar to virbr0. In your case, the easy way out is to install libvirt (which you did). If you had used ubuntu, you'd already have lxcbr0 automagically configured ready to use. -- Fajar _______________________________________________ lxc-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-users
