User: Password:
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Sysfs and namespaces

Sysfs and namespaces

Posted Sep 3, 2008 18:37 UTC (Wed) by jlokier (guest, #52227)
In reply to: Sysfs and namespaces by ebiederm
Parent article: Sysfs and namespaces

I find myself wondering if these containers are nestable.

That is, the whole reason we need any virtualisation is applications (whole working systems) expect something which strongly resembles a single Linux box. Virtualisation provides that illusion, while isolating the application.

In the old days, it was enough to use 'processes' and 'directories' :-)
But applications grew, and did cleverer things like configure their own firewalls and virtual networks, and decided they really depend on a thing which looks strongly like a single Linux box.

Pretty soon, someone is going to decide that these containers are really neat, that you can put Apache in one, DNS in another, SMTP in another, etc., and build whole working systems like that.

Then someone else is going to want to take that working system, and run _that_ in a container... Will it work? Will the containers nest?

(Log in to post comments)

Sysfs and namespaces

Posted Sep 4, 2008 18:06 UTC (Thu) by adobriyan (guest, #30858) [Link]

It should, in theory, work and nest.

Sysfs and namespaces

Posted Sep 4, 2008 20:18 UTC (Thu) by ebiederm (subscriber, #35028) [Link]

Yes. The in kernel solutions are nestable. The out of tree solutions like OpenVZ and Vserver appear to have architecture limits that keeps them from nesting today.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds