kernel level virtualisation requirements.

Alexander Leidinger Alexander at
Sun Oct 14 06:42:56 PDT 2007

Quoting Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd at> (Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:30:44 +0200):

> Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> > Quoting Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd at> (Sat, 13 Oct 2007 12:35:05 +0200):

> >>UIDs - independent UIDs in containers. In relation to UIDs, one can use 
> >>disk quotas inside containers.
> > 
> > 
> > Can you please clarify what you mean here? Are you talking about the
> > current quota support and how it handles UIDs on the host? If your disk
> > proposal above is implemented, I can imagine that the current quota
> > stuff is independent from this and wouldn't need a decoupling from UIDs
> > in a jail from the UIDs on the host.
> Yes I was talking about current quota support na UIDs on host. If I have 
> UID 1001 on host and UID 1001 in two jails on same mountpoint, current 
> quotas can not be used. Or am I wrong?

It can be used if each jails gets it's own FS.

> >>Network bandwidth - same as CPU and memory
> > 
> > 
> > We have this already with dummynet and/or pf, don't we?
> OK, you are right, one can do this with dummynet or pf in simple jail 
> config, but with hierarchical structer, multiple IPs etc. Will it be 
> still usable? Maybe just implement some layer/utility to wrap around 
> container (jail) settings and generate proper dummynet / pf rules will 
> be enough.

I don't know.


Anyone stupid enough to be caught by the police is probably guilty.  Alexander @ PGP ID = B0063FE7     netchild @  : PGP ID = 72077137

More information about the freebsd-arch mailing list