| 1 |
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 1:44 AM, J. Roeleveld <joost@××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Monday, January 18, 2016 02:02:27 AM lee wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> You would have a full VM for each user? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Yes |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
>> That would be a huge waste of resources, |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Diskspace and CPU can easily be overcommitted. |
| 11 |
>... |
| 12 |
> The biggest reason why I don't use KVM is the lack of full snapshot |
| 13 |
> functionality. Snapshotting disks is nice, but you end up with an unclean- |
| 14 |
> shutdown situation and anything that's not yet committed to disk is gone. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Seems like on linux a straightforward design would be spinning up |
| 18 |
containers on demand, with snapshots underneath. Granted, somebody |
| 19 |
still needs to build it, but spinning up a container per user isn't |
| 20 |
much more resource-intensive than just running x2go with multiple |
| 21 |
users in a single namespace which is how it works today. It certainly |
| 22 |
would be less wasteful than a full VM. They also launch and shutdown |
| 23 |
super-fast. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Of course, this is a linux-only solution (or BSD I believe). You're |
| 26 |
not going to be able to do this with OSX/Windows guests. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Rich |
Archives