Well, for many it might not be exactly news but the new release of OpenVZ/VIrtuozzo 7 is out as some kind of obscure standalone distro. Is anyone using it, or are there any plans to integrate it in Proxmox at some point in time? I know it's on a different road now with LCX but many important things are still missing from it that LXC devs are not really interested in fixing.
OpenVZ/Virtuozzo 7?
- Thread starter kobuki
- Start date
We will not use or support OpenVZ - we moved to LXC instead. If you miss a feature, please help to develop that for LXC. But what do you miss exactly?
There is nothing obscure in OpenVZ 7.x: it is using Virtuozzo-linux, which is based on Centos 7.x.
Basically, OpenVZ7 is complete virtualization solution (similar to Proxmox): based on Virtuozzo/Centos-linux (Proxmox: Debian), using KVM/Qemu for virtual machines (the same as Proxmox), and their own openvz-code for containers (whereas Proxmox is using LXC). Therefore I see not much sense in integrating OpenVZ 7.x into Proxmox. IMHO integrating Docker into Proxmox management interface (as you can see in XenServer) would make much more sense...
Basically, OpenVZ7 is complete virtualization solution (similar to Proxmox): based on Virtuozzo/Centos-linux (Proxmox: Debian), using KVM/Qemu for virtual machines (the same as Proxmox), and their own openvz-code for containers (whereas Proxmox is using LXC). Therefore I see not much sense in integrating OpenVZ 7.x into Proxmox. IMHO integrating Docker into Proxmox management interface (as you can see in XenServer) would make much more sense...
@dietmar: you talk like it's an easy task for everyone to become a kernel/container developer 
Well, it's not ant I'm not one.
I understand Proxmox won't have support for it, but I thought I give a shot at asking. What I miss from LCX is more functions for isolation, like showing only the resources allocated. This is simply a must for any sensible mass VPS provisioning. There are attempts at solving this in LXCFS and LXD (on Ubuntu only) but neither one seems to fully solve this simple paradigm.
Well, it's not ant I'm not one.I understand Proxmox won't have support for it, but I thought I give a shot at asking. What I miss from LCX is more functions for isolation, like showing only the resources allocated. This is simply a must for any sensible mass VPS provisioning. There are attempts at solving this in LXCFS and LXD (on Ubuntu only) but neither one seems to fully solve this simple paradigm.
Yes, I know, but it doesn't fully represent resource settings inside the CT - that's my basic problem with LXC and its tools. Otherwise it's pretty stable and works as intended, but until resource limit presentation is not fixed, I'm stuck with OVZ with most installations. Well, I haven't even mentioned FS quotas which can only be solved either by using image files or host-side quotas. I know these things are not new, though.
IMHO If you need a GUI to run Docker microcontainers you do something wrong. You need orchestrations tools like docker swarm or kubernetes for that.
You still not mentioned what you miss exactly?
Virtuozzo also works this way, so I do not see a difference. Well, we ('pct') support much more storage types...
The very same can be said about KVM/LXC: no need for GUI, a few command-line tools is all you need...
What I miss exactly: represent the number of CPUs and memory size consistently across procfs and kernel api, at the least, without CPU pinning or other quirks. Something like OVZ has provided since forever. Simple settable quotas would be nice but I understand OVZ used simfs for that which might not be a viable approach with LXC.
we are working on that.
You probably miss the fact that simfs is already depreciated, and will not be supported in future versions of OVZ.
I'm aware, that's why I wrote the next part of the sentence: "which might not be a viable approach with LXC". I don't expect it to be implemented, but it's very convenient in OVZ. As things stand, not even OVZ 7 supports it, as you hinted, too. Ah well.
BTW, it's nice to hear you already work on the rest of the missing features.
BTW, it's nice to hear you already work on the rest of the missing features.
No offense, but it seems to me you have some problem with understanding. I never said openvz-container is the same as docker-container!