new jail utility is available. announcement.
valentin.bud at gmail.com
Wed Jul 21 11:08:40 UTC 2010
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.
ZFS shouldn't be left out. Besides limiting the disk usage dynamically per
you have another big advantage - snapshots. Suppose you want to upgrade
is a jail and something goes kaboom you just revert to the previous working
I agree you can copy the image back and forth but zfs snapshots are faster
that space consuming.
The layout that I plan to use is the following:
| |> ...
Group can be any kind of characteristic you want to take into account
those jails (eg. group1 - mail servers, group2 - web servers, groupX -
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,
buy new hardware, install FBSD (or just copy the ZFS root container over to
system) and migrate the jails over.
I am waiting for network stack virtualization to come out and dreaming about
migration in the future of FBSD :).
I would like you to reconsider ZFS support and thanks for qjail :).
a great day,
More information about the freebsd-questions