Re: [gentoo-user] xen on new install reboots by itself

["J. Roeleveld" <joost@antarean.org>]

On Thursday, April 23, 2015 11:03:53 PM lee wrote:
> "J. Roeleveld" <joost@antarean.org> writes:
> > On 8 April 2015 14:43:02 GMT-07:00, lee <lee@yagibdah.de> wrote:
> >>hydra <hydrapolic@gmail.com> writes:
> >>> On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 3:20 PM, lee <lee@yagibdah.de> wrote:
> >>>> symack <symack@gmail.com> writes:
> >>>> 
> >>>> Other than that, unless you really do need full virtualization: I'm
> >>>> finding Linux containers to be far more manageable than virtual
> >>>> machines, and much more efficient.
> >>> 
> >>> Can you please post some more details?
> >>
> >>About containers?
> >>
> >>There's very useful documentation about them like
> >>https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/LXC ...
> >>
> >>What can I say?  Virtualization with xen is like juggling with a set of
> >>black boxes each of which aren't exactly accessible; the
> >>documentation sucks, it's hard work to get it running and likewise hard
> >>to maintain.
> >>
> > I disagree. Been using Xen for over 10 years now and find it very easy to
> > use. The documentation could be better on the Xen site itself, but there
> > is plenty of decent documentation available via Google.
> Then we just disagree about this.

Do you have anything that you find insufficiently documented or is too difficult?

> >>Virtualization with containers is basically as simple as running just
> >>another daemon.
> >>
> > Not quite. I use virtualization to minimizer the physical hardware. Xen is
> > easy for that. Containers are what chroot jails should have been. But
> > there is no simple method to set these up when security isolation is your
> > goal.
> Containers or chroots?

Containers.
Chroots don't have much when it comes to isolation.

> >>Which the "better" tool, or combination of tools is, depends on what
> >>you
> >>want to accomplish.  You could use containers in a VM, too, or use
> >>virtualbox along with containers to run the odd VMs that require full
> >>virtualzation.
> >>
> > Virtualbox is nice for a quick test. I wouldn't use it for production.
> 
> Why not?

Several reasons:

1) I wouldn't trust a desktop application for a server

2) The overhead from Virtualbox is quite high (still better then VMWare's 
desktop versions though)

--
Joost