From: Steve Freitas <steve@ih...> - 2001-04-26 06:12:11
I have been following UML's development with rapt attention. It really
is one of the most exciting projects in Linux today.
I've been thinking of putting together a box to host other peoples'
sites, DNS, mail, etc. How far off do you think UML is from being
suitable for that? And although I went through your site, I couldn't
find the question to this answer: Has the unacceptable slowness in
network connections been resolved? Should network performance be
Steve Freitas writes:
> Hi Jeff,
> I have been following UML's development with rapt attention. It really
> is one of the most exciting projects in Linux today.
> I've been thinking of putting together a box to host other peoples'
> sites, DNS, mail, etc. How far off do you think UML is from being
> suitable for that? And although I went through your site, I couldn't
> find the question to this answer: Has the unacceptable slowness in
> network connections been resolved? Should network performance be
> near-native now?
Years ago, I used to work with (then) big IBM and compatible
mainframes. People who bought those machines then used to run
"acceptance tests." The equipment was not accepted as suitable until
it had run those tests satisfactorily for some specified period of
time - typically some number of weeks.
The tests serviced several purposes - vendors were dissuaded from
offering grossly under-specified equipment, and the hardware and
software was proven to actually run the client's applications, and do
do so acceptably quickly and reliably.
What I suggest you do (and there may be others here interested in
joining in) is decide just what you want to do and set up a (virtual)
box to do it. Let it run BIND and mail services, and if you want
database and jave and so on, run them too.
Don't run anything important (or, if you do, make sure you can recover
from any accidents) until you're happy with the outcome.
Ideally you'd end up with a scripted set of tests you (and Jeff if he
wants to) can run against any new version.
Remember 2.4 itself is quite new, and I've had problems with 2.4.2
(mount on loopback did not work well) and 2.4.3 (driver for one of my
network cards broke), and so you need to be careful about upgrading
once you have a version that works to your satisfaction.
I'm looking to run a virtual machine for my own use; for a little
while it's consistently failed to start/stop satisfactorily for me,
though others appear not to have the same problems - except for the
kernel panic after shutdown.
Even when Jeff thinks it's ready for general use, there is no
guarantee that others won't find it entirely broken. Software is often