On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 22:19:37 +0100
José Luis Tallón wrote:
> [...]
> whereas I can't fathom why a cgroup "feels" like a /device/.
>
> I admit not being an expert in virtualization abstraction (I do run a
> significant number of virtual machines, tough), but in fact /sys seems
> to be a much bette
* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [2009-02-03 12:15:24]:
> On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 16:54:58 -0600
> "Chris Friesen" wrote:
>
> > Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> >
> > > Linux Documentation is not consistent and have some funny options. In
> > > Documentation/cgroups/*, we have:
> >
> > > So, we have som
Harald Braumann wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 11:14:03 -0800
> Paul Menage wrote:
>
>
>> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 10:51 AM, sean finney
>> wrote:
>>
>>> or /proc/bus/usb or /dev/shm or /dev/pts... :)
>>>
>>>
>> /dev is a bit different though - even if it's mounted as a udev fs,
>> you
Le mercredi 04 février 2009 à 00:38 +0100, Harald Braumann a écrit :
> So, what's the problem with /dev/cgroups then? If shm/ and pts/
> are allowed under /dev, wouldn't it be discriminating against
> cgroups/, to not allow it there?
/dev/pts contains device entries, so it sounds right to put it i
Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo writes:
> The message you quoted is from Daniel Berrange, not me.
You're right. I should have read more carefully.
> Could you also tell your rationale for not agreeing with /?
The bar for adding new required entries to the root directory is now
very high. The fac
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 15:40:39 -0800
Paul Menage wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Harald Braumann
> wrote:
> >
> > So, what's the problem with /dev/cgroups then? If shm/ and pts/
> > are allowed under /dev, wouldn't it be discriminating against
> > cgroups/, to not allow it there?
>
> Righ
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Harald Braumann wrote:
>
> So, what's the problem with /dev/cgroups then? If shm/ and pts/
> are allowed under /dev, wouldn't it be discriminating against
> cgroups/, to not allow it there?
Right, that's what I proposed a couple of emails earlier in this thread.
P
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 11:14:03 -0800
Paul Menage wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 10:51 AM, sean finney
> wrote:
> > or /proc/bus/usb or /dev/shm or /dev/pts... :)
> >
>
> /dev is a bit different though - even if it's mounted as a udev fs,
> you can create a new directory in there to act as a mount
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 10:51 AM, sean finney wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 07:49:15PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
>> > Having one virtual filesystem mounted on top of another virtual
>> > filesystem seems like a recipe for problems.
>>
>> Like with /sys/fs/fuse/connections ? Come on, there is no
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 07:49:15PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > Having one virtual filesystem mounted on top of another virtual
> > filesystem seems like a recipe for problems.
>
> Like with /sys/fs/fuse/connections ? Come on, there is no problem with a
> virtual filesystem mounted on top of anot
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 08:55:34AM -0800, Paul Menage wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 6:38 AM, Gustavo Noronha wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-02-03 at 23:44 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> >> I agree with all that Thadeu Lima says here. I would add that cgroups
> >> are nothing to do with device nodes, so def
Paul Menage wrote:
>
> Having one virtual filesystem mounted on top of another virtual
> filesystem seems like a recipe for problems. /dev/cgroup or
> /dev/cgroup/ sounds more reasonable to me (although if
> anyone is still using devfs that would suffer from the same drawbacks)
I was leaning towa
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 6:38 AM, Gustavo Noronha wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-03 at 23:44 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
>> I agree with all that Thadeu Lima says here. I would add that cgroups
>> are nothing to do with device nodes, so definitely don't belong in
>> '/dev/' either.
>>
>> Since they're a file
Gabor Gombas (gomb...@sztaki.hu) said:
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 10:24:16AM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>
> > Putting new mount points in / is not really acceptable, so that rules
> > out the first two. /opt is just totally wrong, since that is intended
> > for add on software packages. /dev
On Tue, 2009-02-03 at 23:44 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> I agree with all that Thadeu Lima says here. I would add that cgroups
> are nothing to do with device nodes, so definitely don't belong in
> ‘/dev/’ either.
>
> Since they're a filesystem mapping “for browsing and manipulation
> from user spac
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 10:24:16AM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> Putting new mount points in / is not really acceptable, so that rules
> out the first two. /opt is just totally wrong, since that is intended
> for add on software packages. /dev/ feels a little odd, since it is
> not really dev
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 10:30:28AM -0200, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that libvirt or Fedora did anything in
> respect to the mountpoint themselves. But that they are supporting or
> planning to support cgroups. And I think that one time we will need to
> so
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 11:44:00PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> "Daniel P. Berrange" writes:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 07:41:53PM -0200, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo
> > wrote:
> > > So, we have some more options now: /cgroups, /containers,
> > > /dev/cpuset, /dev/cpuctl, /opt/cgroup, /opt/cp
"Daniel P. Berrange" writes:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 07:41:53PM -0200, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> > So, we have some more options now: /cgroups, /containers,
> > /dev/cpuset, /dev/cpuctl, /opt/cgroup, /opt/cpuset.
>
> Putting new mount points in / is not really acceptable, so that
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 10:24:16AM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 07:41:53PM -0200, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> > From what I've seen, most of them are in the same phases as Debian, or,
> > perhaps, behind. Fedora seems to plan that for Fedora 11, and they hav
On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 07:41:53PM -0200, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 09:52:46PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 09:26:11PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 18:00 -0200, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> > > > Hel
Quoting KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki (kamezawa.hir...@jp.fujitsu.com):
> On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 16:54:58 -0600
> "Chris Friesen" wrote:
>
> > Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> >
> > > Linux Documentation is not consistent and have some funny options. In
> > > Documentation/cgroups/*, we have:
> >
> > >
On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 16:54:58 -0600
"Chris Friesen" wrote:
> Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
>
> > Linux Documentation is not consistent and have some funny options. In
> > Documentation/cgroups/*, we have:
>
> > So, we have some more options now: /cgroups, /containers, /dev/cpuset,
> > /de
On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 04:54:58PM -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
>
>> Linux Documentation is not consistent and have some funny options. In
>> Documentation/cgroups/*, we have:
>
>> So, we have some more options now: /cgroups, /containers, /dev/cpuset,
>> /dev/c
Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
Linux Documentation is not consistent and have some funny options. In
Documentation/cgroups/*, we have:
So, we have some more options now: /cgroups, /containers, /dev/cpuset,
/dev/cpuctl, /opt/cgroup, /opt/cpuset.
I am copying the container and the kernel
On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 09:52:46PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 09:26:11PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 18:00 -0200, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Some software I intend to package work with the new cgroup feature in
On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 09:26:11PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 18:00 -0200, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Some software I intend to package work with the new cgroup feature in
> > Linux. I would like to open a discussion about what would be the be
On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 18:00 -0200, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Some software I intend to package work with the new cgroup feature in
> Linux. I would like to open a discussion about what would be the better
> place to mount it and how/when to mount it.
What do other distros
Hello,
Some software I intend to package work with the new cgroup feature in
Linux. I would like to open a discussion about what would be the better
place to mount it and how/when to mount it.
Some of the options are:
/sys/cgroup
/proc/cgroup
These two would not be very wise, since some kernel
29 matches
Mail list logo
