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 38150138CA2 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 21:05:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B4A43E0AF8; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 21:04:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jarl.yagibdah.de (unknown [185.55.75.245]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22391E07C2 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 21:04:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from br-dmz-ip.yagibdah.de ([192.168.1.1] helo=heimdali.yagibdah.de) by jarl.yagibdah.de with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1YlOIl-0008Ee-Ku for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 23:04:51 +0200 Received: from lee by heimdali.yagibdah.de with local (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1YlOIl-0002k2-IT for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 23:04:51 +0200 From: lee To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] xen on new install reboots by itself In-Reply-To: (J. Roeleveld's message of "Thu, 16 Apr 2015 07:12:11 -0700") Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 23:03:53 +0200 Organization: my virtual residence Message-ID: <87r3rablqe.fsf@heimdali.yagibdah.de> References: <87384gni7b.fsf@heimdali.yagibdah.de> <87wq1mjnyx.fsf@heimdali.yagibdah.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux) Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org 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-Type: text/plain X-Archives-Salt: d011e9d2-26bc-474d-8989-02e68b9c61e5 X-Archives-Hash: dfd4b71d89269b48ed636b4834aafcef "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. >>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? >>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? -- Again we must be afraid of speaking of daemons for fear that daemons might swallow us. Finally, this fear has become reasonable.