On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 11:45:35AM +0400, Dmitry Mishin wrote: > On Sunday 10 September 2006 06:47, Herbert Poetzl wrote: > > well, I think it would be best to have both, as > > they are complementary to some degree, and IMHO > > both, the full virtualization _and_ the isolation > > will require a separate namespace to work, > [snip] > > I do not think that folks would want to recompile > > their kernel just to get a light-weight guest or > > a fully virtualized one
> In this case light-weight guest will have unnecessary overhead. For > example, instead of using static pointer, we have to find the required > common namespace before. this is only required at 'bind' time, which makes a non measurable fraction of the actual connection usage (unless you keep binding ports over and over without ever using them) > And there will be no advantages for such guest over full-featured. the advantage is in the flexibility, simplicity of setup and the basically non-existant overhead on the hot (conenction/transfer) part ... > > best, > > Herbert > > > > > -- > > > Thanks, > > > Dmitry. > > -- > Thanks, > Dmitry. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
