openvz to LXC?

AdamM

Hi,

I am wondering what I should expect to be different when using a host that has LXC as opposed to Openvz. I am asking from the perspective of a client using a hosting service (not as somone running a host and setting up the servers).

Best,

-Adam

vapornode

We have been working with LXC for about 6 months now.

Unless your usage involves dealing with the kernel I don't think you will notice much of a difference. It's no secret that since LXC is built into the mainline Linux kernel, it is more up to date. The fundamental security of LXC containers was an issue in the past but the project has matured past that phase. The majority of differences I've noticed for clients are negligible. There is a short list of differences that I like as a LXC provider but those wouldn't concern this topic

William

vapornode said: The fundamental security of LXC containers was an issue in the past but the project has matured past that phase

Not 100% though a lot is solved now.

vapornode

Right, I don't believe anything security related is 100% covered. The framework is in a much better place now though.

sin

It's likely that LXC/LXD is the future

DETio

The differences are negligible for the user, everything you 'need' to achieve in your OpenVZ VM can also be done in an LXC VM.

Keep in mind, OpenVZ & LXC both allow for shared resources (CPU/RAM/Storage), thus the provider can oversell these resources.

I however, prefer Docker for Private Deployments, and hyper.sh for Public Environments (Since it brings support Docker to KVM - allowing it to be much more secure)

teamacc

@DETio said:
The differences are negligible for the user, everything you 'need' to achieve in your OpenVZ VM can also be done in an LXC VM.

Keep in mind, OpenVZ & LXC both allow for shared resources (CPU/RAM/Storage), thus the provider can oversell these resources.

Although on LXC you can see what load the entire node is under, contrary to ovz.

noaman

@vapornode said:
We have been working with LXC for about 6 months now.

Unless your usage involves dealing with the kernel I don't think you will notice much of a difference. It's no secret that since LXC is built into the mainline Linux kernel, it is more up to date. The fundamental security of LXC containers was an issue in the past but the project has matured past that phase. The majority of differences I've noticed for clients are negligible. There is a short list of differences that I like as a LXC provider but those wouldn't concern this topic

Well ...how will tht affect kvm market?

Obviously some things cannot be oversold in kvm....

But in lxc you can over sell

But their are some users who buy KVM just for setting up some modules(fuse,gre,ppp etc)
That host node doesnt provide

Also

The prices

KVM>>LXC>>Openvz

Or

KVM>> LXc

And lxc=openvz

vapornode

@teamacc said:
Although on LXC you can see what load the entire node is under, contrary to ovz.

That is true. One of the smaller things a customer might notice but it isn't significant.

@noaman said:
KVM>> LXc
And lxc=openvz

This is how we price things for our traditional, non-custom, non-promotional plans.

noaman

@vapornode said:

@teamacc said:
Although on LXC you can see what load the entire node is under, contrary to ovz.

That is true. One of the smaller things a customer might notice but it isn't significant.

@noaman said:
KVM>> LXc
And lxc=openvz

This is how we price things for our traditional, non-custom, non-promotional plans.

Yes and if the kernel is updated...most of the users could get docker ....

also one of the reasons people switch to KVM from openvz from the lack of support of docker....

Though hostus and some hosts have docker support...

elgs

@noaman said:

@vapornode said:

@teamacc said:
Although on LXC you can see what load the entire node is under, contrary to ovz.

That is true. One of the smaller things a customer might notice but it isn't significant.

@noaman said:
KVM>> LXc
And lxc=openvz

This is how we price things for our traditional, non-custom, non-promotional plans.

Yes and if the kernel is updated...most of the users could get docker ....

also one of the reasons people switch to KVM from openvz from the lack of support of docker....

Though hostus and some hosts have docker support...

I think the intention of docker is the massive application deployment. If you are using docker as a virtual machine, you are misusing it.

noaman

@elgs said:

@noaman said:

@vapornode said:

@teamacc said:
Although on LXC you can see what load the entire node is under, contrary to ovz.

That is true. One of the smaller things a customer might notice but it isn't significant.

@noaman said:
KVM>> LXc
And lxc=openvz

This is how we price things for our traditional, non-custom, non-promotional plans.

Yes and if the kernel is updated...most of the users could get docker ....

also one of the reasons people switch to KVM from openvz from the lack of support of docker....

Though hostus and some hosts have docker support...

I think the intention of docker is the massive application deployment. If you are using docker as a virtual machine, you are misusing it.

Well i was looking to pull some images from docker repo when i was trying to port on Android rom ..

They are huge above 100gbs...

Like CyanogenMod and MIUI...

So an easy way was to simply pull all of it using docker...

So i just wanted to buy a time4vps

And enquired them for docker...they said no...

So i didnt buy...

I am just sharing my personal experience with the docker and the limitations that comes with using openvz as virtualization..

Thats all nothing else..

Besides i believe functionality should be there for the end user no matter how he uses :-)

msg7086

Also there's the systemd-nspawn that works similar to LXC. I had migrate some of my servers from LXC to nspawn and they are working fine (despite the effort to make them working).