On Thu, 2013-09-26 at 10:07 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 08:01:31PM +0300, Janne Karhunen wrote: > > That being said, our wish would be to support any combination of > > OS's and frankly, I'd be slightly annoyed to tell the customer that > > they can't do two Androids or we magically run out of bits. > > If you want to support "any" combination of operating systems, then use > a hypervisor, that's what they are there for :) No that's not quite the right way to think about it: The correct statement is only use a hypervisor if you need different kernels. With Windows, it happens to be true that you need a different kernel for each different OS version. However; with Linux, thanks to strong ABI backwards compatibility, you mostly don't. The way OpenVZ works today is that it installs a modified kernel which can then bring up every Linux OS in a separate container. Our use case is the hosters that give you root login to a virtual private server and allow you to upgrade it on your own. The reason for using a container rather than a hypervisor is the old density and elasticity one: 3x the density (i.e. 1/3 the overhead cost to the hoster) and the boot only needs to start at init, not bring up of virtual hardware and booting a second kernel. James _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
