>>LXC seems to slowly develop - the bad news is that RH just dropped support
>>for
>>it :-/
>>(at least the announced that in a press release).
Any link about this.
I found an article saying the opposite
http://www.zdnet.com/article/red-hat-gets-serious-about-supporting-container-style-virtu
>>Docker is more about 1 process (apache,mysql,) = 1 container
Note that it's possible to run multiple process in 1 docker, using some apps
like supervisor,
which manage process/services
https://docs.docker.com/articles/using_supervisord/
I found also some fosdem infos about ovirt/docker/
>>Docker is best run inside a VM. It makes no sense to run such limited
>>containers
>>on the host.
Same opinion for me.
I'm begin to use docker in production, inside qemu guest. (mainly to deploy php
applications)
Docker is more about 1 process (apache,mysql,) = 1 container
- Mail or
> Check out the concept of 'linking' in Docker. You basically build multiple
> containers and link them together. With links between containers, ports
> will be opened and restricted to and between the linked containers. It's a
> pretty neat concept. Basically, it becomes a clustered app.
I know t
Good point. I'd forgotten they'd moved to that.
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015, 12:21 Waschbüsch IT-Services GmbH <
serv...@waschbuesch.it> wrote:
>
> > Am 29.03.2015 um 20:18 schrieb Daniel Hunsaker :
> >
> > There's Gentoo, which seemed pretty solid and stable while I was using
> it, but I haven't looke
> Am 29.03.2015 um 20:18 schrieb Daniel Hunsaker :
>
> There's Gentoo, which seemed pretty solid and stable while I was using it,
> but I haven't looked at their kernels lately to see how they are faring...
But being a rolling-release OS, would that be at all suitable?
Martin
signature.asc
D
Check out the concept of 'linking' in Docker. You basically build multiple
containers and link them together. With links between containers, ports
will be opened and restricted to and between the linked containers. It's a
pretty neat concept. Basically, it becomes a clustered app.
Now, from this d
There's Gentoo, which seemed pretty solid and stable while I was using it,
but I haven't looked at their kernels lately to see how they are faring...
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015, 12:08 Dietmar Maurer wrote:
> > I guess that is not really the problem, but Docker is intended to run
> > applications not f
> Am 29.03.2015 um 20:07 schrieb Dietmar Maurer :
>
>> I guess that is not really the problem, but Docker is intended to run
>> applications not full systems like the way it works for OpenVZ now.
>
> It is even more limited. The idea is to run single binaries inside a docker
> container.
Agreed
> I guess that is not really the problem, but Docker is intended to run
> applications not full systems like the way it works for OpenVZ now.
It is even more limited. The idea is to run single binaries inside a docker
container.
But in real world, most applications need to run many different binar
I would like to see Docker integration in PVE, but me too don't really see
it how it should work. There are plenty of other projects that are better.
Maybe it would be good to evaluate whether Docker can be used for full
system containerization (if I remember correctly they allow mounting /),
but o
> > We do not have very good experiences with Ubuntu LTS kernels ...
> >
> Then I can only think of Debian.
Sure, that is always an option.
___
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com
http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 19:29:53 +0200 (CEST)
Dietmar Maurer wrote:
>
> We do not have very good experiences with Ubuntu LTS kernels ...
>
Then I can only think of Debian.
--
Hilsen/Regards
Michael Rasmussen
Get my public GnuPG keys:
michael rasmussen cc
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=
> I'm just saying that in the same way OpenVZ is great, it would be equally
> great to have similar functionality in PVE around Docker that has been
> available for OpenVZ.
A docker container is very limited (compared to OpenVZ), and it simply makes
no sense to add a GUI for starting/stopping sim
> > Why do you say that Docker is best run in a VM? On the contrary, I
> > think it would be great to run Docker natively on the Proxmox host and
> > have a visual representation of what container images have been
> > downloaded, which ones are running and using NoVNC to attached
> > directly to a
Unsafe in which way? From a security point of view of from a "you might
completely botch your PVE installation"? If the latter, that's OK on the
particular system I tried it on, as it's just a testing system. If the
former, then that's more concerning, but on the host I have it, it still
doesn't ma
I guess that is not really the problem, but Docker is intended to run
applications not full systems like the way it works for OpenVZ now.
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 7:32 PM, Dietmar Maurer wrote:
> > Why do you say that Docker is best run in a VM? On the contrary, I
> > think it would be great to r
> Why do you say that Docker is best run in a VM? On the contrary, I
> think it would be great to run Docker natively on the Proxmox host and
> have a visual representation of what container images have been
> downloaded, which ones are running and using NoVNC to attached
> directly to a container.
> > What kernel would you suggest? My feeling is that RH kernel is still most
> > stable.
> >
> The kernel for Ubuntu server seems stable and well maintained. If you
> choose 14.04 LTS then you receive maintenance until Q1 2019.
We do not have very good experiences with Ubuntu LTS kernels ...
__
than LXC 1.1.0 support it now. (so live migration should works).
>>
>>
>>
>> BTW, still no news of openvz 3.10 kernel git :(
>> ___
>> pve-devel mailing list
>> pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com
>> http://pv
On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 19:11:42 +0200 (CEST)
Dietmar Maurer wrote:
>
> What kernel would you suggest? My feeling is that RH kernel is still most
> stable.
>
The kernel for Ubuntu server seems stable and well maintained. If you
choose 14.04 LTS then you receive maintenance until Q1 2019.
--
Hilse
> If RedHat isn't going to support the technologies we need, and OpenVZ is
> evaporating anyway, maybe we should consider a different kernel? One where
> KVM and LXC, at least, will be fully supported? It seems that creating our
> own team to manage backporting kernel patches ourselves would be
On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 16:26:32 +
Daniel Hunsaker wrote:
> If RedHat isn't going to support the technologies we need, and OpenVZ is
> evaporating anyway, maybe we should consider a different kernel? One where
> KVM and LXC, at least, will be fully supported? It seems that creating our
> own te
On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 18:10:17 +0200 (CEST)
Dietmar Maurer wrote:
>
> Docker is best run inside a VM. It makes no sense to run such limited
> containers
> on the host.
>
I agree. I was only referring to 'the bad news is that RH just dropped
support for it :-/ '
--
Hilsen/Regards
Michael Rasmus
If RedHat isn't going to support the technologies we need, and OpenVZ is
evaporating anyway, maybe we should consider a different kernel? One where
KVM and LXC, at least, will be fully supported? It seems that creating our
own team to manage backporting kernel patches ourselves would be difficult
> > Yes - I started to remove the OpenVZ code from the jessie branch for that
> > reason
> > now.
> > LXC seems to slowly develop - the bad news is that RH just dropped support
> > for
> > it :-/
> > (at least the announced that in a press release).
> >
> > Any ideas are highly appreciated ...
>
On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 17:35:02 +0200 (CEST)
Dietmar Maurer wrote:
> LXC seems to slowly develop - the bad news is that RH just dropped support for
> it :-/
This blog post from 2014-09 shows that LXC online migration is very near
to be available: http://tycho.ws/blog/2014/09/container-migration.htm
On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 17:35:02 +0200 (CEST)
Dietmar Maurer wrote:
>
> Yes - I started to remove the OpenVZ code from the jessie branch for that
> reason
> now.
> LXC seems to slowly develop - the bad news is that RH just dropped support for
> it :-/
> (at least the announced that in a press rele
> So it seem than LXC 1.1.0 support it now. (so live migration should works).
>
>
>
> BTW, still no news of openvz 3.10 kernel git :(
Yes - I started to remove the OpenVZ code from the jessie branch for that reason
now.
LXC seems to slowly develop - the bad news is that RH just dropped suppo
As far as i understood the latest openvz news. It's dead.
And there will be a new virtuozzo open source edition but no longer openvz
stuff.
Greets,
Stefan
Excuse my typo sent from my mobile phone.
> Am 29.03.2015 um 15:25 schrieb Alexandre DERUMIER :
>
> Hi,
>
> I just notice some change on
Hi,
I just notice some change on the criu wiki
http://criu.org/LXC
http://criu.org/index.php?title=LXC&diff=2249&oldid=1721
LXC upstream has begun to integrate checkpoint/restore support through the
lxc-checkpoint tool. This functionality has been in the recent released version
of LXC---LXC
31 matches
Mail list logo
