Quoting Paul Jackson (pj@xxxxxxx): > Kirill, Serge, et al, > > Is it fair to say then that Paul Menage's containers are primarily > for the purposes of managing resources, while namespaces are for the > purposes of managing identifiers? > > We've got some resources, like cpu cycles, memory bytes, network > bandwidth, that we want to allocate and account for differentially > by groups of tasks -- that's Menage's containers. > > We've got some system wide namespaces, like process id's, that we > want to virtualize, for more flexible uses -- these are the name- > space containers. > > In Serge's opening post to this thread, he wrote: > 1. namespaces > 2. process containers > 3. checkpoint/restart > > Are the 'process containers' of item (2) the containers of Paul Menage? Yup. > If so, then I propose that this thread is misnamed. It should not be > "containers development plans", but rather "namespace, container and > c/r development plans." And if so, there is really no conflict over > the use of the word 'container' -- that applies just to the resource > virtualization efforts, of which my cpusets is the granddaddy example, > being generalized by Paul Menage with his container patches. The other > work is, as Serge actually termed it in the body of his post, better > called 'namespaces'. > > Perhaps the confusion arose from looking for a single word to encompass > all three parts, listed above, of this work. The efforts have some strong Not exactly - the "confusion" arose because the ksummit committee wanted to hear about "containers", and agreed that by that term they mean each of those three. So I kept the term 'containers' in the roadmap title, but we can change that if it's preferred. thanks, -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
