>30% of OpenVZ core patch are changes is mainstream (fixes, security, stability etc.). These are either backported patches or stuff we commit to mainstream.
OpenVZ is not worse/better than many other features (CPUSETs, NUMa, memnodes, IPv6:~) ) which are not *widely* used and has some special purposes, but which still happily coexist with each other.
It's much more secure:
- root can get out of chroot, but root can't get out of VPS
- chroot doesn't limit your resource usage anyhow (disk space, CPU, memory), in VPS you can dynamically change QoS parameters.
- chroot doesn't limit processes anyhow on IPC, signals etc. f.e. user with UID=100 can SIGKILL processes run with the same UID. In VPSs you can have the same UIDs, but processes are isolated.
- and so on...
a lot of things...
- OpenVZ allows to run 100 VPSs on 1GB RAM
- OpenVZ has no Xen I/O overhead (20-40%)
- OpenVZ natively supports SMP (and always supported) inside VPS (up to all of your CPUs)
- OpenVZ starts/stops VPS in a few seconds
- OpenVZ creates VPS in less than a minute
- OpenVZ allows to change all VPS QoS parameters on the fly (disk space, CPU and memory limits)
- OpenVZ allows much better resource utilization, it doesn't reserve VPS *unused* memory for future use etc.
just from my mind... I can elaborate on this further.
Virtuozzo is not just about a kernel patch, it's a set of management tools built upon OpenVZ infrastructure.
It's more tested/better supported (for money) etc. This is why in general its quality is better.
Exactly like with Fedora/RHEL, which one would you use in production?
Slashdot Mirror
>30% of OpenVZ core patch are changes is mainstream (fixes, security, stability etc.). These are either backported patches or stuff we commit to mainstream. OpenVZ is not worse/better than many other features (CPUSETs, NUMa, memnodes, IPv6 :~) ) which are not *widely* used and has some special purposes, but which still happily coexist with each other.
It's much more secure: - root can get out of chroot, but root can't get out of VPS - chroot doesn't limit your resource usage anyhow (disk space, CPU, memory), in VPS you can dynamically change QoS parameters. - chroot doesn't limit processes anyhow on IPC, signals etc. f.e. user with UID=100 can SIGKILL processes run with the same UID. In VPSs you can have the same UIDs, but processes are isolated. - and so on...
a lot of things... - OpenVZ allows to run 100 VPSs on 1GB RAM - OpenVZ has no Xen I/O overhead (20-40%) - OpenVZ natively supports SMP (and always supported) inside VPS (up to all of your CPUs) - OpenVZ starts/stops VPS in a few seconds - OpenVZ creates VPS in less than a minute - OpenVZ allows to change all VPS QoS parameters on the fly (disk space, CPU and memory limits) - OpenVZ allows much better resource utilization, it doesn't reserve VPS *unused* memory for future use etc. just from my mind... I can elaborate on this further.
Virtuozzo uses the same codebase as OpenVZ.
Virtuozzo is not just about a kernel patch, it's a set of management tools built upon OpenVZ infrastructure. It's more tested/better supported (for money) etc. This is why in general its quality is better. Exactly like with Fedora/RHEL, which one would you use in production?
coming Virtuozzo 3.0 (based on OpenVZ) will have NPTLs.