On 16/10/12 12:49, Trent W. Buck wrote:
Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> writes:
My fallback would be NFS shared ZFS in the domU - much cheaper because you only have one ARC, set of checksums, etc, to manage, but with the added bonus of NFS between the domU and dom0. Fun times.
Are you sure that LXC or OpenVZ wouldn't better fit your needs than Xen? You trade off marginally less isolation between containers for the simplicity of having a single kernel image - so native ZFS performance.
That's a possibility. What is the support for them like in Debian/Wheezy?
I am currently running LXC on 2.6.32, to separate services (e.g. apache, postfix/dovecot, nsd3), on consolidated hardware. IME LXC as at 2.6.32 was inadequate for this task -- in particular, per-container resource allocation and encapsulation (e.g. of /sys) was not ready.
Wheezy will be 3.2. I have not done any significant work on LXC on a post-2.6.32 system, but AFAICT it has vastly improved, especially in the areas that annoyed me. IMO LXC on 3.2 is definitely worth at least considering.
Just chipping in with a quick "Yes, LXC is good". I've been running it for a while now, it's been great. As Trent suspected, I can confirm it's improved vastly by the era of 3.2 kernels. You really want an up-to-date lxc userland. A lot of things used to be annoying and fiddly and not-quite-work-right, but seem to have been pretty good for the past year. The defaults for new containers are more sensible. I haven't used the libvirtd userland stuff at all; had a quick peer at it once, and it seemed to be very limited/incomplete.. don't know if it's improved much yet. It would be nice if the other lxc userland had a GUI and easier tools for people to use though. (I don't mind doing it on the command line myself)