On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 22:19:37 +0100
José Luis Tallón jltal...@adv-solutions.net wrote:
[...]
whereas I can't fathom why a cgroup feels like a /device/.
I admit not being an expert in virtualization abstraction (I do run a
significant number of virtual machines, tough), but in fact /sys seems
Harald Braumann wrote:
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 11:14:03 -0800
Paul Menage men...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 10:51 AM, sean finney sean...@seanius.net
wrote:
or /proc/bus/usb or /dev/shm or /dev/pts... :)
/dev is a bit different though - even if it's mounted as a
* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki kamezawa.hir...@jp.fujitsu.com [2009-02-03 12:15:24]:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 16:54:58 -0600
Chris Friesen cfrie...@nortel.com wrote:
Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
Linux Documentation is not consistent and have some funny options. In
Documentation/cgroups/*,
Le mercredi 04 février 2009 à 00:38 +0100, Harald Braumann a écrit :
So, what's the problem with /dev/cgroups then? If shm/ and pts/
are allowed under /dev, wouldn't it be discriminating against
cgroups/, to not allow it there?
/dev/pts contains device entries, so it sounds right to put it in
On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 07:41:53PM -0200, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 09:52:46PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 09:26:11PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 18:00 -0200, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
Hello,
Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com writes:
On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 07:41:53PM -0200, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
So, we have some more options now: /cgroups, /containers,
/dev/cpuset, /dev/cpuctl, /opt/cgroup, /opt/cpuset.
Putting new mount points in / is not really
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
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 10:24:16AM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
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
On Tue, 2009-02-03 at 23:44 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
I agree with all that Thadeu Lima says here. I would add that cgroups
are nothing to do with device nodes, so definitely don't belong in
‘/dev/’ either.
Since they're a filesystem mapping “for browsing and manipulation
from user space” of
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 11:44:00PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com writes:
On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 07:41:53PM -0200, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo
wrote:
So, we have some more options now: /cgroups, /containers,
/dev/cpuset, /dev/cpuctl, /opt/cgroup,
Gabor Gombas (gomb...@sztaki.hu) said:
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 10:24:16AM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
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
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 6:38 AM, Gustavo Noronha k...@debian.org wrote:
On Tue, 2009-02-03 at 23:44 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
I agree with all that Thadeu Lima says here. I would add that cgroups
are nothing to do with device nodes, so definitely don't belong in
'/dev/' either.
Since they're a
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 10:24:16AM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 07:41:53PM -0200, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
From what I've seen, most of them are in the same phases as Debian, or,
perhaps, behind. Fedora seems to plan that for Fedora 11, and they have
Paul Menage wrote:
Having one virtual filesystem mounted on top of another virtual
filesystem seems like a recipe for problems. /dev/cgroup or
/dev/cgroup/hierarchy_name sounds more reasonable to me (although if
anyone is still using devfs that would suffer from the same drawbacks)
I was
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 07:49:15PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
Having one virtual filesystem mounted on top of another virtual
filesystem seems like a recipe for problems.
Like with /sys/fs/fuse/connections ? Come on, there is no problem with a
virtual filesystem mounted on top of another.
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 10:51 AM, sean finney sean...@seanius.net wrote:
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 07:49:15PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
Having one virtual filesystem mounted on top of another virtual
filesystem seems like a recipe for problems.
Like with /sys/fs/fuse/connections ? Come on,
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 11:14:03 -0800
Paul Menage men...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 10:51 AM, sean finney sean...@seanius.net
wrote:
or /proc/bus/usb or /dev/shm or /dev/pts... :)
/dev is a bit different though - even if it's mounted as a udev fs,
you can create a new
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Harald Braumann ha...@unheit.net wrote:
So, what's the problem with /dev/cgroups then? If shm/ and pts/
are allowed under /dev, wouldn't it be discriminating against
cgroups/, to not allow it there?
Right, that's what I proposed a couple of emails earlier in
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 08:55:34AM -0800, Paul Menage wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 6:38 AM, Gustavo Noronha k...@debian.org wrote:
On Tue, 2009-02-03 at 23:44 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
I agree with all that Thadeu Lima says here. I would add that cgroups
are nothing to do with device nodes,
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 15:40:39 -0800
Paul Menage men...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Harald Braumann ha...@unheit.net
wrote:
So, what's the problem with /dev/cgroups then? If shm/ and pts/
are allowed under /dev, wouldn't it be discriminating against
cgroups/, to not
Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo casca...@minaslivre.org writes:
The message you quoted is from Daniel Berrange, not me.
You're right. I should have read more carefully.
Could you also tell your rationale for not agreeing with /?
The bar for adding new required entries to the root directory is
Hello,
Some software I intend to package work with the new cgroup feature in
Linux. I would like to open a discussion about what would be the better
place to mount it and how/when to mount it.
Some of the options are:
/sys/cgroup
/proc/cgroup
These two would not be very wise, since some
On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 18:00 -0200, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
Hello,
Some software I intend to package work with the new cgroup feature in
Linux. I would like to open a discussion about what would be the better
place to mount it and how/when to mount it.
What do other distros use?
On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 09:26:11PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 18:00 -0200, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
Hello,
Some software I intend to package work with the new cgroup feature in
Linux. I would like to open a discussion about what would be the better
On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 09:52:46PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 09:26:11PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 18:00 -0200, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
Hello,
Some software I intend to package work with the new cgroup feature in
Linux. I
Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
Linux Documentation is not consistent and have some funny options. In
Documentation/cgroups/*, we have:
So, we have some more options now: /cgroups, /containers, /dev/cpuset,
/dev/cpuctl, /opt/cgroup, /opt/cpuset.
I am copying the container and the
On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 04:54:58PM -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
Linux Documentation is not consistent and have some funny options. In
Documentation/cgroups/*, we have:
So, we have some more options now: /cgroups, /containers, /dev/cpuset,
/dev/cpuctl,
On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 16:54:58 -0600
Chris Friesen cfrie...@nortel.com wrote:
Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
Linux Documentation is not consistent and have some funny options. In
Documentation/cgroups/*, we have:
So, we have some more options now: /cgroups, /containers,
Quoting KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki (kamezawa.hir...@jp.fujitsu.com):
On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 16:54:58 -0600
Chris Friesen cfrie...@nortel.com wrote:
Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
Linux Documentation is not consistent and have some funny options. In
Documentation/cgroups/*, we have:
29 matches
Mail list logo
