Dmitry Mishin wrote: > Hi, Daniel! Hi Dmitry ! good to see you again :) > I studied a bit lxc tools and have a couple of questions. Could you answer > them? Of course I can :) > 1) Why did you chose such way of a container's configuration storing? IMHO, > configuration in one file is better, because this file will be small and > could be easily mmap'ed for the following operations instead of multiple > readdir() and filesystem lookups. I wanted to have the configuration easily hackable, so you can edit directly the files inside the directory. For example, if you remove the network directory, when you will start the container, the network will not be unshared. If you have a single file, that will be more difficult to edit especially if it is a binary file. The container tree contains more than the configuration file, for example, it contains some runtime information. It is true having a mmapped configuration is more efficient but it is just for container startup, and there are not thousand of files. The application running inside the container is not impacted. > 2) why did you chose cvs as VCS? Git is more common and convenient for > distributed development... The lxc userspace tool is a low level component I wrote to play with the container, and especially to facilitate the kernek hacking. The lxc kernel website is at lxc.sourceforge.net, so logically I put this component at the same place. Unfortunately the sourceforge website does not provide the services for git tree, only CVS/SVN. But I agree 100% with you, I would have definitively preferred to use git. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
