Less intrusive indeed - simplicity matters!
I forgot to mention another reason why I've chosen VServer:
OpenVZ kernel 2.6.32 become available only recently.
VServer supported 2.6.32 for a while - much much longer.
So a year ago I decided to use recent kernel with KSM
rather older OpenVZ kernel. OpenVZ's adoption of new kernels is quite
slow - perhaps just too slow...
Regards,
Onlyjob.
On 10 December 2010 14:06, Herbert Poetzl <herbert@13thfloor.at> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 07:14:36PM +0100, mourad.alia@orange-ftgroup.com wrote:
>> ________________________________________
>> De : ALIA Mourad NRS
>> Date d'envoi : jeudi 9 décembre 2010 19:14
>> À : vserver@list.linux-vserver.org
>> Objet : VServer vs OpenVZ.
>> I made a mistake in my text :
>
>> " VServer is more tooled, simpler,
>> virtualise the network, supports hot VM migration".
>
>> to be replaced by :
>
>> " OpenVZ is more tooled,
>
> there might be more tools, but what can you do with
> that tools you can't accomplish in Linux-VServer?
>
>> simpler,
>
> definitely depends on the point of view ...
>
>> virtualise the network,
>
> you can have that with network namespaces in recent
> Linux-VServer (and mainline) kernels
>
>> supports hot VM migration".
>
> google the archives for my statement on that if you
> really like to know, but IMHO it's a pure marketing
> feature which doesn't really make sense in production
>
> besides that, here are a few points to consider in
> advantage of Linux-VServer:
>
> less intrusive:
> the Linux-VServer patch against 2.6.36 is 753K
> the OpenVZ patch for 2.6.36 does not exist; the
> patch for 2.6.32 (seems to be the latest) 4.9M
> note that the features are roughly the same
>
> more performant:
> Linux-VServer has no measureable overhead for
> network isolation and allows the full performance
> (OpenVZ report 1-3% overhead, not verified)
>
> better integrated:
> Linux-VServer is around for 10 years now and
> supports all Linux platforms and architectures
> (OpenVZ supports only 6 and mainly RH(EL))
>
> all other points (true independant open source
> for example) have been already covered by other
> replies ...
>
> best,
> Herbert
>
>> Sorry for that,
>> Cheers,
>
>> -- Mourad
>
>> Dear VServers,
>
>> As introduced in my previsous post, wa are about using VServer to emaulate P2P like VoIP peers. This is used for sacalability and performance testing of our VoIP application.
>>
>> Here are our needs :
>>
>> A) We want to have a maximum of VMs per server. Our server are 24 hyperthreded machine with 6 physical network interfaces :
>> IP Network Server NSN2U (Ballenger-NH)
>> Single 600W AC PSU
>> Memory 24 GB
>> CPU Dual Xeon E5645
>> SATA HDD 500GB
>> Ethernet I/O Module (four Gigabit rear ports)
>>
>> B) Each VM hosts a JVM which run one or many instances of our applications.
>>
>> C) The applications (VoIP peers) communicate basically through multicast.
>>
>> D) Each n VMs (m applications) will use one given Eth physical interface to distribute correctly the network traffic.
>>
>> Currently, there is a hot discussion in my departement on OpenVZ vs VServer : " VServer is more tooled, simpler, virtualise the network, supports hot VM migration".
>>
>> What do you think about this versus ?
>>
>> Any particular advise towards my use case ?
>>
>> Thank you for your response and support,
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> -- Mourad ALIA
>> Software Architect
>> OBS
>>
>> *********************************
>> This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees.
>> Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited.
>> Messages are susceptible to alteration.
>> France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified.
>> If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender.
>> ********************************
>
Received on Fri Dec 10 04:18:49 2010