On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 10:19:53PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >Given the proliferation of session daemons, perhaps the right answer is for > >people who need this to use Linux-Vserver or OpenVZ to provide isolation > >similar to running on separate machines with a network share. > > > > > Unless these patches get upstream, they are not the right answer - > atleast for Fedora. Oh, I certainly agree; my point is that for someone who *really* needs this capability, rather than just "oh that would be nice and clean...", there is a route available. Just as audio workstation users take Fedora Core and transform it into PlanetCCRMA by running adding a bunch of packages and running a custom Ingo-turbocharged RT kernel. In both case, the stuff might make it upstream one day, or might not. Xen provides an interesting example too. Over the years there have been dozens of checkpoint/migrate/restart mechanisms developed at the process level, and they are complicated beasts. With Xen, the unit of encapsulation is the OS instance, and a non-local filesystem and gratuitous ARP are about all that's required. -Bill -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
