On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 1:55 AM, Rod Whitworth <glis...@witworx.com> wrote: > On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 20:49:37 -0600, Amit Kulkarni wrote: > >>https://lwn.net/Articles/524606/ >> >>don't have a subscription but for those who do, enjoy. >> > > But http://lwn.net/Articles/524920/ will give you the idea without $$$
"rleigh, it's really not as easy as you think. Making the event loop portable to kqueue is complex, but doable, I can agree to that. -- But the trouble starts beyond that. The BSDs don't have anything like cgroups. *There's no way to attach a name to a group of processes, in a hierarchal, secure way*. And you cannot emulate this. (And no, don't say "BSD jail" now, because that is something very different). But this already is at the very core of systemd. It's how systemd tracks services." how can someone write this and not explain why a process managing pgroups can't achieve the same results? pgroups is going to be the first alternative for someone instinctively looking for a portable alternative, so i'm genuinely interested in knowing why they've discarded the idea i am, however, aware of differences *unrelated* to writing a systemd like appliance. pgroups do not provide per item hostname and other virtualization facilities in freebsd jails/linux cgroups, but what about *relevant* differences? something weak like "the index for for cgroups is wide enough to fit an UUID"? in other words, something that *doesn't* require a completely new api?
