64 bit linux binary support

William A. Mahaffey III wam at hiwaay.net
Fri Jan 15 15:33:28 UTC 2016

On 01/15/16 05:24, Alejandro Imass wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 9:53 AM, William A. Mahaffey III <wam at hiwaay.net> wrote:
>> On 01/14/16 08:27, Alejandro Imass wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 1:49 AM, Malcolm Matalka <mmatalka at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Alejandro Imass <aimass at yabarana.com> writes:
>>>>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 10:56 AM, William A. Mahaffey III
>>>>> <wam at hiwaay.net> wrote:
> [...]
>>> My response is pretty clear: Docker is pretty much like FreeBSD Jails
>>> so why not use FBSD Jails (e.g. with EzJail) in the first place
>>> instead of going through the trouble of getting a Linux-like jail
>>> system to run on FreeBSD. And if you want/need Docker so bad then it
>>> would probably be better to run on Linux to begin with.
> [...]
>> Hmmmm .... It's not so clear to me, but that might be a deficiency @ my end
>> :-/. I would like to run 64-bit binaries compiled on/for linux boxen
>> (specifically CentOS/RHEL 6) on my FreeBSD boxen, currently 3 in number, all
>> various AMD64 CPUs, all running 9.3R. My question only involved docker to
>> the extent that the docker wiki page alludes to apparently newly available
>> (as of last summer) 64-bit linux binary support, which is what I am really
>> interested in.
> Perhaps you should look into bhyve, the FBSD Hypervisor

Bhyve apparently not available for 9.3R. Virtualbox is there & works, 
but locks up (reserves) a fixed amount of CPU & RAM while running. It is 
a viable option, I was looking for something a bit 'lighter weight'.

Again, my original question pertained to 64-bit linux binary support. 
32-bit is there & working (linux ABI layer), I was just curious about 
how 64-bit was/is going.

>> I *AM* (separately) interested in docker, for various reasons. Specifically,
>> I would want to use it as a lightweight VM system, which I *think* works
>> under Linux. I.e. you can run a container of a non-native OS if it is CPU
>> compatible w/ the host CPU.
> AFAIK this is not the case. The reason Docker is lightweight to begin
> with is because:
> "Containers running on a single machine all share the same operating
> system kernel so they start instantly and make more efficient use of
> RAM"

See https://wiki.freebsd.org/Myths, in the section about:

    'FreeBSD Does Not Support Virtualisation'

> As I see it, Docker is nothing more than a copy of the FBSD Jail
> system ported to Linux and with some sophistications that make it easy
> to manage the images.
> Most of this can be done with FBSD Jails and especially with things like EzJail.
>> As I understand things, that is not feasible w/
>> jails, although I have found some URL's which claim otherwise. Clarification
>> on that point would be welcome as well. I have asked before & been told it
>> was *NOT* feasible, but maybe things have changed or I am missing something.
>> TIA & have a good one.
> IMO virtualization is not lightweight by definition. So you either
> virtualize fully or pseudo-virtualize with chroot-like systems.
> In this perspective I see Docker as nothing more than a sophisticated
> chroot system just like FBSD Jails, only Linux-based and less mature
> ;-)
> Best,
> Alejandro Imass

Thanks for all info so far. Have a good one :-).


	William A. Mahaffey III


	"The M1 Garand is without doubt the finest implement of war
	 ever devised by man."
                            -- Gen. George S. Patton Jr.

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list