| 1 |
Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>> So I have opted for #5: vserver-sources, and I have multiple instances |
| 4 |
>> of apache running in pretty good isolated vserver-guests. |
| 5 |
>> My ¤0.0144 ... |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I used vserver once, and was very impressed with the performance. I didn't use |
| 8 |
> it eventually, as I found administering a real running instance was non- |
| 9 |
> intuitive to anyone but me and I found it very hard to get people to grok how |
| 10 |
> to run the things. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> That was in the days of pre-baselayout-2 when one had to use a very hackish |
| 13 |
> and buggy baselayout. How does it fare with v2? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I've been using vserver just for a few months. baselayout2 is still |
| 16 |
~arch iirc, but I never had any problem with it. Once baselayouts2 goes |
| 17 |
finally stable, you can install guests with standard stage3. Untill then |
| 18 |
a slightly tweaked stage3 (with baselayout2) must be used... |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I'm running now 27 guests on very moderate server (AMD64/X2, 4GB RAM), |
| 21 |
every service on its own guest, with only ssh and logging on host. |
| 22 |
Even for gcc-upgrade I created new vserver-guest, to test it a little |
| 23 |
before updating server (host). |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Configuration is rather complex (especially for a newbie), but not |
| 26 |
very difficult. It is definitelly an adult-looking project now, |
| 27 |
worth giving a try... |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Jarry |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
_______________________________________________________________ |
| 33 |
This mailbox accepts e-mails only from selected mailing-lists! |
| 34 |
Everything else is considered to be spam and therefore deleted. |
Archives