new jail utility is available. announcement.

[Valentin Bud]

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Aiza <aiza21 at comclark.com> wrote:

>
>  Not yet, when I have a spare box I might, although I quite like using
>> zfs for jails as you can limit the disk usage dynamically per zfs
>> filesystem and I didnt see any support there yet, even basic support
>> like there is with ezjail would be nice.
>>
>>
> Zfs was left out because its over kill. Sparse image jails gives the same
> protection at a 10th of the overhead.
>
>
Hello community,

 ZFS shouldn't be left out. Besides limiting the disk usage dynamically per
zfs FS
you have another big advantage - snapshots. Suppose you want to upgrade
ports
is a jail and something goes kaboom you just revert to the previous working
snapshot.
 I agree you can copy the image back and forth but zfs snapshots are faster
and not
that space consuming.

 The layout that I plan to use is the following:

storage/jails
                  |>storage/jails/group1
                  |                                 |
                  |
|>storage/jails/group1/jail1
                  |
|>storage/jails/group1/jail2
                  |
                  |>storage/jails/group2
                  |                                 |> ...
                  |

Group can be any kind of characteristic you want to take into account
regarding
those jails (eg. group1 - mail servers, group2 - web servers, groupX -
companyY, etc.).
You can also go with more levels of depth but for me it's enough.

This way if your server doesn't handle all the jails you have running,
simply
buy new hardware, install FBSD (or just copy the ZFS root container over to
the new
system) and migrate the jails over.

I am waiting for network stack virtualization to come out and dreaming about
live jails
migration in the future of FBSD :).

I would like you to reconsider ZFS support and thanks for qjail :).

a great day,
v
-- 
network warrior