From: Igor Seletskiy (iseletsk_at_psoft.net)
Date: Fri 30 Jan 2004 - 00:07:31 GMT
I will follow up and add some more info. Alexey Lyashkov was hired by
Positive Software in 2002 to add enhancements and speed up development
of vserver project (it was vserver back then). Several more developers
where added at later stages. I was mostly interested in creating virtual
server environment for hosting companies. As vserver development
stopped, we decided to create our own branch (freeVPS).
As the name says - it is free. As part of linux kernel - it is GPL (I
don't think it is legal to produce any kind of patches to linux kernel
under any different license). Also, with tools it is more complex - most
of the tools are GPL as well. Only those tools that are unique to
h-sphere to provision freeVPS are covered by commercial license.
So, from the licensing standpoint - there should be any issues.
The reason redhat kernel was select - due to some back ports from 2.6 -
like O(1) scheduler - that made it very convenient & easy to improve
virtualization without sacrificing too much of the performance. Also,
the fact that patches are for redhat kernel - doesn't reduce its ability
to work on any other linux distro - it is still linux kernel.
That is also why I think merge between linux-vserver & freeVPS makes
sense. In 2.6 - we are going to go with standard kernel (as all the
necessary pieces already there).
Regarding how intrusive are changes - they probably are. We tried to
create very good, highly isolated, high performance virtual environment
that would sustain hosting environment. So we had to assume that inside
each virtual server - there were "hostile" root users. I understand that
it can break bunch of additional patches against vanilla kernel - yet,
for us virtualization was more imported.
Regarding "patches are welcome" - it is not that easy. I cannot have my
guys working on two projects. Thats why I want to be sure that
a) There are enough interest in merging (aka finding compromises when
b) FreeVPS design strategies are ok for linux-vserver developers
c) We can come up with a set of common goals, tasks and with a way to
Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> n Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 04:34:00PM -0500, Igor Seletskiy wrote:
>>My name is Igor Seletskiy. I own psoft (maker of freeVPS). I wander what
>>are your thoughts about merging linux-vserver & freeVPS?
>>I believe at some points freeVPS is more advanced then linux-vserver
>>(like our new memory accounting module, new network routing, also, &
>>mount tables), on the other hand - I am pretty sure that there are bunch
>>of places where linux-vserver is more advanced.
>>I spun off freeVPS when Jacques virtually stopped releasing anything.
>>Yet, seeing how linux-vserver took off - I wander what your feelings are
>>about merging projects & working together.
> I always tried to keep contact to Alexey Lyashkov, who,
> if I'm not mistaken, started and maintains the vserver
> branch, now known as freeVPS (I wonder if that information
> is incomplete?)
> I'm forwarding this to the mailing list, because I think
> it is of interest for the community, and I hope you do not
> take this as a personal offense (which isn't intended).
> some facts (as I see them):
> - freeVPS has some features the current linux-vserver
> implementation lacks (memory, networking, ...)
> - freeVPS is limited to a certain kernel (RH 2.4.18)
> and distribution (RedHat 7.3) and I assume arch
> (i386) too
> - the License of tools and kernel patches is not
> obvious to me, although kernel patches basically
> default to GPL
> - the changes freeVPS made to the RH kernel are very
> intrusive and might introduce various issues which
> need some reviewing and a lot of testing
> my opinion:
> I'm convinced that 'working together' in a well defined
> way, and even 'merging' various parts, provided that they
> are covered by an open and free license, could be very
> beneficial for both projects, but I currently do not see
> a simple way to do that (ideas welcome ;) ...
> That said, I'm not convinced that it can't be done, it
> just needs some work on both sides and especially some
> official statements from your side, what how and why
> psoft is/will be involved in this (well there is a
> commercial product H-Sphere, right?)
> btw, linux-vserver development is free, and as I said
> many times, patches are always welcome, so if your aim
> is to 'improve' the quality of a free linux-vserver
> implementation, publishing patches agains recent dev.
> versions would be a great way to do that ...
> Now here is the point, where I would like to ask the
> community for their opinion on that issue, because I
> might be the current project leader, but the project
> itself has evolved and become a community project.
Vserver mailing list