On 08/23/2010 01:08 PM, Peter Volkov wrote: > В Пнд, 23/08/2010 в 11:44 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov пишет: >> And no - you cannot replace openvz with lxc yet for many reasons. > > Pavel, I think lot's of people will benefit if you summarize important > points of differences. Yea, I have my own list but I'd better listen to > knowledgeable people first ;) :) OK, but first of all - the list I provide is just the situation we currently have that will change in the future, not some fundamental problem. Besides, I can be not aware of some recent changes, so please correct me if I'm wrong. So, the benefits of the OpenVZ against LXC. 1. Checkpointing. That's the biggest difference. 2. Resource management. Currently in LCX you may only have a per container user memory management. In OpenVZ we control much more resources like kernel memory or networking buffers 3. Entering a container. I've seen many approaches of how to join a foreign container (sys_hijack, sys_nsfd, sys_cloneat, etc) but AFAIK none of them is included in the mainline. 4. 2-level disk quota. We're trying to push one into the Al's tree however ;) 5. Bells-and-whistles like NFS/NFSd virtualization, FUSE virtualization, etc 6. Containers management like vzlist tool or various /proc files, that help you to track containers state and resources > With best regards, _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
