Msg11642.html: Difference between revisions
From Linix VServer
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Restored content from Wayback Machine) |
(No difference)
|
Latest revision as of 23:27, 10 November 2025
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Vserver] VServer vs OpenVZ[edit]
- From: Alex Lyashkov
- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 16:57:41 +0100 (CET)
В Срд, 07.12.2005, в 16:34, Herbert Poetzl пишет: > On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 06:44:43AM +0200, Alex Lyashkov wrote: > > > > > (will use Z for OpenVZ and S for Linux-VServer) > > > > > > > Factors of interest are > > > > - stability, > > > > > > Z: the announcement reads "first stable OVZ version" > > > S: we are at version 2.0.1 (> two years stable releases) > > > > > And all this time VServer need a hack for allow bind socket to > > INADDR_ANY at VPS ;-) > > hmm, well, it works reasonably fine .. no? > The thing that I find unreasonable is that you cannot bind to INADDR_ANY on the host server, without affecting all the VPSes. This basically means that if you have default bind (or ssh) installed on the HOST system, no VPSes will be able to bring up those services. > > Z Have: COW VFS (simular unionfs), > > S: has CoW link breaking (more powerful than unionfs :) > CoW link requires glibc modification, while VZFS does not. The negative side of VZFS is double buffering, due to it being stackable FS. > > Virtual networking support, > > Fair-share scheduler > > S: priority and hard cpu schedulers > This is not the same. Priority and hard limits don't provide fair share CPU scheduling. Two different things (three). > > Z don`t have: disk namespace support > > (but create vroot simular FreeBSD Jail). > > but I guess we are heading towards a feature > shootout (which is fine for me, but isn't very > important for the userbase, I guess :) > > best, > Herbert > > PS: nice to hear from you! > PPS: is there anything left from the cooperation > we started a year ago (or so)? > It would be great, but somewhat difficult as Vserver and FreeVPS use different ideology. VServer and OpenVZ store context id at kernel objects level (it's easier to develop, but slows down access to context data). FreeVPS stores pointer to context structure, at kernel object (more work, debugging, but much faster access to data, that is needed for each context switch). I see a lot of potential in the possible merge, but I consider the way FreeVPS works with context ids to be much more efficient. I also consider it fairly critical for optimum performance on a server with large number of VPSes. It would be great to work together though, but it makes sense only if VServer developers are interested in merging projects/porting some of the FreeVPS staff to VServers as well. Other side - FreeVPS used RH EL kernels. this adds stability to the kernel API, while all the bug fixes are back ported. At the same time Vserver can continue to use bleeding edge kernels/be portable across all the platforms If compare features - FreeVPS has all features which VServer have at x86 platform. Yet, at this moment it is the only platform supported. -- FreeVPS Developers Team http://www.freevps.com Positive Software http://www.psoft.net
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Vserver] VServer vs OpenVZ
- From: Herbert Poetzl
- Re: [OT][Vserver] VServer vs OpenVZ
- From: Dennis Roos
- Re: [Vserver] VServer vs OpenVZ
- References:
- RE: [Vserver] VServer vs OpenVZ
- From: Ehab Heikal
- RE: [Vserver] VServer vs OpenVZ
- From: Alex Lyashkov
- Re: [Vserver] VServer vs OpenVZ
- From: Herbert Poetzl
- RE: [Vserver] VServer vs OpenVZ
- Prev by Date: Re: [Vserver] patch for linux-2.6.14.3
- Next by Date: Re: [OT][Vserver] VServer vs OpenVZ
- Previous by thread: Re: [Vserver] VServer vs OpenVZ
- Next by thread: Re: [OT][Vserver] VServer vs OpenVZ
- Index(es):