Luke S Crawford <[email protected]> writes:
> Lamont Granquist <[email protected]> writes:
>> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>
>> > For what it is worth, I have found that "container" solutions often scale
>> > better to the actual workload than "pretend hardware" virtualization
>> > does, because it shares RAM between the containers much more easily for
>> > these tiny, almost nothing, applications.
[...]
> A previous poster suggested os-level virtualization like OpenVZ; that is
> sort of a middle of the road solution between consolidating the old
> fashioned way and fully virtualizing.
[...]
> (personally, I prefer paravirtualization for this reason. I host untrusted
> users, and I don't mind throwing away some ram if it means I don't have to
> worry about it when some joker decides to run mprime, or when someone tries
> to run a giant webapp on the smallest plan.)
For what it is worth, having used Virtuozzo (the commercial parent of OpenVZ)
in an environment where we hosted untrusted users, it did just fine in
addressing these constraints.
I further understand that Solaris soft partitioning can achieve the same
results, in terms of guaranteed CPU, memory and other resource bounding.
So, while I agree that OpenVZ does poorly I suggest that is an implementation,
not an architectural, issue with the tool.
Regards,
Daniel
--
✣ Daniel Pittman ✉ [email protected] ☎ +61 401 155 707
♽ made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons
Looking for work? Love Perl? In Melbourne, Australia? We are hiring.
_______________________________________________
Tech mailing list
[email protected]
http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
http://lopsa.org/
