On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 12:20:42PM -0600, Adam Majer wrote:
> >>> What steps are required for it to be included?
> >> political hick-hack and a lot of convincing/knowing
> >> the core kernel developers ...
> > it might be worth the effort, though. OOT development is the main
> > obstacle for vserver acceptance here (compared to OpenVZ).
OpenVZ is not OOT?
> > It would be a pity if vserver did go the reiserfs way.
> I think the correct way to proceed would be to isolate small changes
> that could be added to the kernel that would not be seen as too
> intrusive and definitely not in one go. The process could take months
> and months, but eventually the vserver patch would be reduced to,
> hopefully, zero.
> My understanding is the changes vserver introduces are,
> * process isolation
> + process space
> + memory
> * file system isolation
> * privilege reduction in guest
> * network isolation
> I would propose that we try getting each one of these, in turn,
> into the kernel.
> The first would have to be the process space isolation.
mainline goes for the heavier process virtualization
instead of isolation ...
> But before even doing that, we need something better than one giant
> Is there a vserver repository where people can work and commit
> stuff? For example, arch/git/svn/hg/whatever ?
git is distributed and simple, create your own repository
and start working on it ...
> - Adam
> BTW: I'm not a vserver developer or even a kernel developer, but I'll
> learn something in my hacking :)
Received on Thu Jan 10 00:06:09 2008