From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F37F138CA2 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 11:37:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8855EE0A40; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 11:37:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gw2.antarean.org (gw2.antarean.org [141.105.125.208]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72AE4E09D2 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 11:37:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw2.antarean.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D0FC121545 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 11:36:15 +0000 () X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at antarean.org Received: from gw2.antarean.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (gw2.antarean.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LlasErMTjURc for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 11:36:14 +0000 (%Z) Received: from data.antarean.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw2.antarean.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6BAB121435 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 11:36:14 +0000 () Received: from andromeda.localnet (unknown [10.20.13.200]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by data.antarean.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A8AE24B for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 13:36:44 +0200 (CEST) From: "J. Roeleveld" To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] xen on new install reboots by itself Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 13:37:03 +0200 Message-ID: <3498478.tZ8U0JdMle@andromeda> Organization: Antarean User-Agent: KMail/4.14.3 (Linux/3.18.11-gentoo; KDE/4.14.3; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <87r3rablqe.fsf@heimdali.yagibdah.de> References: <87r3rablqe.fsf@heimdali.yagibdah.de> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Archives-Salt: da6d2c1b-12ad-4cbf-904f-81ba13b99664 X-Archives-Hash: f03880c16fcea3d4db47179d086edbcd On Thursday, April 23, 2015 11:03:53 PM lee wrote: > "J. Roeleveld" writes: > > On 8 April 2015 14:43:02 GMT-07:00, lee wrote: > >>hydra writes: > >>> On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 3:20 PM, lee wrote: > >>>> symack 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