kernel level virtualisation requirements.
Alexander at Leidinger.net
Sun Oct 14 06:42:56 PDT 2007
Quoting Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd at quip.cz> (Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:30:44 +0200):
> Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> > Quoting Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd at quip.cz> (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.
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7
http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
More information about the freebsd-arch