2012/5/30 Matt Joyce <matt.jo...@cloudscaling.com>: > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Soren Hansen <so...@linux2go.dk> wrote: >> 2012/5/30 Matt Joyce <matt.jo...@cloudscaling.com>: >>> Secondly, while LXC does provide a lot of native access, it still >>> does paging management internally just as kvm does. So direct >>> memory management ( some HPC users like this ) becomes just as >>> problematic as it is in kvm. Lots of overhead. >> I'm not convinced this is accurate. Can you provide some kind of >> reference for this? > Okay so KVM uses a nastier abstraction layer in the form of shadow > paging, while LXC simply relies on cgroups for memory isolation. > Obviously two very different beasts. But there is the overhead of > cgroup accounting and resource management inside LXC.
Ah, yes. Cgroups. I'm obviously behind the times. In my head, an LXC container is just a namespaced (set of) process(es). Very good point. Thanks. -- Soren Hansen | http://linux2go.dk/ Senior Software Engineer | http://www.cisco.com/ Ubuntu Developer | http://www.ubuntu.com/ OpenStack Developer | http://www.openstack.org/ _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
