"J. Roeleveld" <jo...@antarean.org> writes: > On 8 April 2015 14:43:02 GMT-07:00, lee <l...@yagibdah.de> wrote: >>hydra <hydrapo...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 3:20 PM, lee <l...@yagibdah.de> wrote: >>> >>>> symack <sym...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>> Other than that, unless you really do need full virtualization: I'm >>>> finding Linux containers to be far more manageable than virtual >>>> machines, and much more efficient. >>>> >>>> >>> Can you please post some more details? >> >>About containers? >> >>There's very useful documentation about them like >>https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/LXC ... >> >>What can I say? Virtualization with xen is like juggling with a set of >>black boxes each of which aren't exactly accessible; the >>documentation sucks, it's hard work to get it running and likewise hard >>to maintain. > > I disagree. Been using Xen for over 10 years now and find it very easy to use. > The documentation could be better on the Xen site itself, but there is plenty > of decent documentation available via Google.
Then we just disagree about this. >>Virtualization with containers is basically as simple as running just >>another daemon. > > Not quite. I use virtualization to minimizer the physical hardware. Xen is > easy for that. Containers are what chroot jails should have been. > But there is no simple method to set these up when security isolation is your > goal. Containers or chroots? >>Which the "better" tool, or combination of tools is, depends on what >>you >>want to accomplish. You could use containers in a VM, too, or use >>virtualbox along with containers to run the odd VMs that require full >>virtualzation. > > Virtualbox is nice for a quick test. I wouldn't use it for production. Why not? -- Again we must be afraid of speaking of daemons for fear that daemons might swallow us. Finally, this fear has become reasonable.
