new jail utility is available. announcement.
aiza21 at comclark.com
Wed Jul 21 11:37:45 UTC 2010
Valentin Bud wrote:
> 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
> 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
> and not
> 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 -
> 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,
> 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,
What you are doing behind the jail system back using zfs, qjail does
with the -z zone option right up front. And the archive and restore of
qjail jails is less than 3 seconds right now. How much faster does it
need to be?
More information about the freebsd-questions