Any counter-comments, from a VServer strengths point of view?
- Forwarded message from Kir Kolyshkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: Kir Kolyshkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 17:17:18 +0300
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Users] VServer vs OpenVZ
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunde
On Tuesday 06 December 2005 15:45, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> Any counter-comments, from a VServer strengths point of view?
i'll try to get some points together here... i'm not an experienced user of
vserver, but i have some remarks here...
> - Forwarded message from Kir Kolyshkin <[EMAIL PROTECTE
On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 03:45:42PM +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>
> Any counter-comments, from a VServer strengths point of view?
>
> - Forwarded message from Kir Kolyshkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
>
> From: Kir Kolyshkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 17:17:18 +0300
> To: [EMAIL
> ngnet was delayed several times because it is not
> really necessary to have and of course network
> virtualization adds overhead and 'might' affect
> stability (as the kernel networking is changing
> very heavily with every release)
>
I don`t right. Network virtualization reduse overhead of us
Rik Bobbaers wrote:
stable: yes, secure... well... as far as possible, BUT!
multipath using devicemapper in their kernel? almost impossible, unless the
backported that entirely from 2.6.13 (of some 2.6.12 rcX)
a lot of other enhancements in 2.6.8+ kernels... it's for a reason that
kernels ge
