Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 2nd Feb 2013 01:47 UTC, submitted by rohan_p
Permalink for comment 551231
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/15/13 22:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/14/13 18:22 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-01-28
Laurence,
"Why are they using VirtualBox? Surely OpenVZ would be better suited for this - completely sandboxed networking and containers are harder to break out of than Virtual machines..."
What makes you say this? Now I don't know the particulars of VBox (I'm a KVM user myself), but in general within a VM the networking is completely sandboxed as well. The virtual network traffic cannot just jump onto the host's network stack unless they're bound somehow.
"(which, for the record, a skilled hacker can escape so the 'no malware' argument of theirs is a little ignorant)."
You'll have to forgive me if I have my doubts, maybe OpenVZ is more secure, but such claims deserve to be backed by hard evidence.
"...Plus containers will have a much lower footprint than VirtualBox. In fact pretty most other virtualisation solution would have a lower foot print than VBox..."
I can believe this, I had read that VirtualBox is slower than KVM (which is also VM based) due to the progressive state of virtual io drivers in KVM. I don't think your loosing that much to virtualization with the right hardware extensions enabled, maybe 5-10%, but that's an educated guess.