lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [May]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] Per-user namespace process accounting
Quoting Marian Marinov (mm@1h.com):
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 05/29/2014 01:06 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > Marian Marinov <mm@1h.com> writes:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I have the following proposition.
> >>
> >> Number of currently running processes is accounted at the root user namespace. The problem I'm facing is that
> >> multiple containers in different user namespaces share the process counters.
> >
> > That is deliberate.
>
> And I understand that very well ;)
>
> >
> >> So if containerX runs 100 with UID 99, containerY should have NPROC limit of above 100 in order to execute any
> >> processes with ist own UID 99.
> >>
> >> I know that some of you will tell me that I should not provision all of my containers with the same UID/GID maps,
> >> but this brings another problem.
> >>
> >> We are provisioning the containers from a template. The template has a lot of files 500k and more. And chowning
> >> these causes a lot of I/O and also slows down provisioning considerably.
> >>
> >> The other problem is that when we migrate one container from one host machine to another the IDs may be already
> >> in use on the new machine and we need to chown all the files again.
> >
> > You should have the same uid allocations for all machines in your fleet as much as possible. That has been true
> > ever since NFS was invented and is not new here. You can avoid the cost of chowning if you untar your files inside
> > of your user namespace. You can have different maps per machine if you are crazy enough to do that. You can even
> > have shared uids that you use to share files between containers as long as none of those files is setuid. And map
> > those shared files to some kind of nobody user in your user namespace.
>
> We are not using NFS. We are using a shared block storage that offers us snapshots. So provisioning new containers is
> extremely cheep and fast. Comparing that with untar is comparing a race car with Smart. Yes it can be done and no, I
> do not believe we should go backwards.
>
> We do not share filesystems between containers, we offer them block devices.

Yes, this is a real nuisance for openstack style deployments.

One nice solution to this imo would be a very thin stackable filesystem
which does uid shifting, or, better yet, a non-stackable way of shifting
uids at mount.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-05-29 18:21    [W:0.088 / U:0.812 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site