* Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> In the OpenVZ case, they've at least demonstrated that the > >> filesystem can be moved largely with rsync. Unlinked files > >> need some in-kernel TLC (or /proc mangling) but it isn't > >> *that* bad. > > > > And in the Zap we have successfully used a log-based > > filesystem (specifically NILFS) to continuously snapshot the > > file-system atomically with taking a checkpoint, so it can > > easily branch off past checkpoints, including the file > > system. > > > > And unlinked files can be (inefficiently) handled by saving > > their full contents with the checkpoint image - it's not a > > big toll on many apps (if you exclude Wine and UML...). At > > least that's a start. > > Oren we might want to do a proof of concept implementation > like I did with network namespaces. That is done in the > community and goes far enough to show we don't have horribly > nasty code. The patches and individual changes don't need to > be quite perfect but close enough that they can be considered > for merging. > > For the network namespace that seems to have made a big > difference. > > I'm afraid in our clean start we may have focused a little too > much on merging something simple and not gone far enough on > showing that things will work. > > After I had that in the network namespace and we had a clear > vision of the direction. We started merging the individual > patches and things went well. I'm curious: what is the actual end result other than good looking code? In terms of tangible benefits to the everyday Linux distro user. [This is not meant to be sarcastic, i'm truly curious.] Ingo _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
