Paul Menage <menage@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Serge E. Hallyn<serue@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Quoting Li Zefan (lizf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx): >>> Paul Menage wrote: >>> > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Li Zefan<lizf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >> But I guess we are going to fix the bug for 2.6.31? So is it ok to >>> >> merge a new feature 'cgroup.procs' together into 2.6.31? >>> >> >>> > >>> > Does this bug really need to be fixed for 2.6.31? I didn't think that >>> > the namespace support in mainline was robust enough yet for people to >>> > use them for virtual servers in production environments. >> >> I don't know where the bar is for 'production environments', but I'd >> have to claim that pid namespaces are there... > > Well, pid namespaces are marked as experimental, as are user > namespaces (and were described as "very incomplete" a few months > back). Pid namespaces are useful for process migration (which is still > under development) or virtual servers (for which user namespaces are > pretty much essential). So I'm not sure quite what you'd use pid > namespaces for yet. I have pid namespaces in pretty heavy use already. Inescapable process groups are quite handy. Eric _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
