4 ms·
Why stop there? Package every binary in its own container, too! Most programs only use a few system calls, so you're not really getting anything by sharing a si
by gok 6y ago
Why stop there? Package every binary in its own container, too! Most programs only use a few system calls, so you're not really getting anything by sharing a single kernel for the entire system.
- Shorel 6y agoSeems to be the general trend. A virtualized kernel per service.
- kortex 6y agoThat's literally what RancherOS does. ls is a container. Blew my mind the first time I saw it. But they take the "cattle not pets" approach pretty much to its logical extreme (I suspect that the company's name arises from this metaphor) It makes ops so liquid and convenient. I love it. To really push this idea (and microkernel) to its logical extreme, it would be cool to see a null-kernel. You have socket drivers, that's it. Everything is either a network call or some sort of IPC. You might still need something to handle paging, though, and obviously your "peripherals" like storage would need to be more conventional in nature.
- pjmlp 6y agoIt makes sense from security point of view, but it definitely is much more resource intensive. Imagine something like InteliJ or Eclipse, where every single IDE plugin is its own process doing IPC.
- yencabulator 6y agoAll containers on a single host very much share the same kernel. You're confused about virtualization vs containers.