Talk:OS-level virtualization: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:57, 10 March 2023

Latest revision as of 16:13, 15 July 2024

(5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Talk header}}

{{WikiProject Computingbanner shell|class=C|
{{WikiProject Computing|importance=mid|software=yes|software-importance=high}}

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

| algo = old(365d)

Line 10 ⟶ 12:

| minthreadsleft = 4

}}

== Add information about Kata Containers ==

Kata Containers has just released version 1.0. The technology is basically qemu but with all hardware virtualization removed. Intel has been working on it for a couple of ears and it was highly talked about at the big OpenStack meetup in Canada in May 2018. https://katacontainers.io/ --[[User:Svintoo|Svintoo]] 2018-05-29 09:14 (UTC)

== Definition of ''container'' ==

While researching for this article, I've noticed different definitions of ''container'' depending on what aspects of the technology the authors want to stress. For example, Docker defines a container as "a standard unit of software that packages up code and all its dependencies so the application runs quickly and reliably from one computing environment to another" [https://www.docker.com/resources/what-container], while this article (before I rewrote the lead) defined a container as an instance of a virtual userspace created thru OS-level virtualization [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Container_(virtualization)&oldid=885636072]. Since Docker is the most widespread container framework, the lead should give due weight to their definition (which stresses portability). <span style="white-space: nowrap;">[[User:Qzekrom|Qzekrom]] [[User talk:Qzekrom|💬]] ^they_them</span> 18:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

== Renaming back to “OS-level virtualisation” ==

Line 48 ⟶ 47:

:: --[[User:MrMizo|MrMizo]] ([[User talk:MrMizo|talk]]) 10:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

: I stumbled into this page, and as an industry veteran of multiple decades, I very much agree with the "dangerous misconception" statement above. OS containers are about *isolation* not *virtualization*. These are distinct concepts in the tech world, and this page/article is incorrectly conflating them in a way that will hurt industry discourse and general understanding for its readers. AsContainer I'misolation can only be considered "virtualization" in the weakest sense of the word virtualization, which is a sense that is not typically used in the industry because it then becomes a wikipediauseless editorword. To give an analogy, howprocess doisolation disputesis about fundamentalpermission: definitionswithin oran "termsisolated process namespace, processes do not have permission to see processes from outside of artthat namespace. By analogy, on a typical filesystem, the permissions of the filesystem are unlikely to allow user A to deeply traverse into user B's personal home area. Would one then say that "the getfilesystem resolvedpermissions are an OS-level virtualization because from a user A process's perspective it cannot access user B's storage resources and thus is seeing a 'virtualized disk that doesn't contain user B's resources'"? DoOf Icourse justnot. add Perhaps we could benefit from a clarification section _somewhere_ about the difference between "Thisthe isliteral classificationenglish orword's definitionmeaning" isand disputed"the textcommon ormeaning labelin toindustry in the page?context in [[User:VDave420|VDave420]]which ([[Userthis talk:VDave420|talk]])article 23:57lives", 10where Marchone 2023of (UTC)those includes things like "containers" and the other doesn't.

: As I'm not typically a wikipedia editor, how do disputes about fundamental definitions or "terms of art" get resolved? Do I just add a "This is classification or definition is disputed" text or label to the page? [[User:VDave420|VDave420]] ([[User talk:VDave420|talk]]) 23:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

== Flexibility section: Unclear sentence about "server relay analytics" ==

This sentence is not just hard to parse, I don't see how it's related to the topic, nor how it's supported by its source:

> Adaptation methods including cloud-server relay analytics maintain the OS-level virtual environment within these applications.[5]

First, "adaptation" to what? The prior sentences mention inability to host Windows within Linux container and sensitivity to "input systematics" (whatever that is?!) but I don't see how relaying analytics through the cloud can help with either of those.

The [https://www.pdsw.org/pdsw15/papers/p13-huang.pdf cited paper] is specifically about disk I/O performance, and only mentions "analytics" and once a "server" among example apps they were running inside containers, not as solution to anything. The paper doesn't look related to _anything_ in "Flexibility" section.

[[User:Cbensf|Cbensf]] ([[User talk:Cbensf|talk]]) 13:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)