Herbert Poetzl wrote:
On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 10:13:48PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
It's actually happening quite gradually and carefully.
hmm, I must have missed a testing phase for the
IPC namespace then, not that I think it is broken
(well, maybe it is, we do not know yet)
You
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Kir Kolyshkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Herbert Poetzl wrote:
my point (until we have an implementation which clearly
shows that performance is equal/better to isolation)
is simply this:
of course, you can 'simulate' or 'construc
Herbert Poetzl wrote:
my point (until we have an implementation which clearly
shows that performance is equal/better to isolation)
is simply this:
of course, you can 'simulate' or 'construct' all the
isolation scenarios with kernel bridging and routing
and tricky injection/marking of packets,
Kirill Korotaev wrote:
I think classifying network virtualization by Layer X is not good enough.
OpenVZ has Layer 3 (venet) and Layer 2 (veth) implementations, but
in both cases networking stack inside VE remains fully virtualized.
Let's describe all those (three?) approaches at
http://wiki.o
