On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 10:31:26AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 03:16:51PM +0200, Bosson VZ wrote: [...] > - What do you see as the long term future of the driver ? I've > already asked whether there's any risk from future OpenVZ releases > potentially breaking things. Historically the idea with the kernel's > namespace support was that the OpenVZ forked kernel would be able > to go away. IIUC, the openvz userspace can already run on top of a > plain mainline kernel, albeit with reduced features compared to when > it runs on openvz kernel fork. If we assume the trend of merging > OpenVZ features into mainline continues, we might get to a point > where OpenVZ kernel fork no longer exists. At that point I wonder > what would be the compelling differences between BossonVZ and the > LXC driver ? ie why would we benefit from 2 container drivers for > the same kernel functionality. Good point ! My recollection of talking with James Bottomley is indeed that all the special features are being migrated as part of the commonly agreed upon set of kernel primitives put in the kernel for containers. So I hope that this driver will indeed work based on those primitives and not the Parallels specific extensions, as those may vanish sooner or later. What kernels do you support, only CentOS-6 modified ones ? Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | Open Source and Standards, Red Hat veillard@xxxxxxxxxx | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/ -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list