From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Mar 27 06:25:58 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02E45106566C;
	Thu, 27 Mar 2008 06:25:58 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from lists@c0mplx.org)
Received: from home.opsec.eu (unknown [IPv6:2001:14f8:200::1])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B34128FC15;
	Thu, 27 Mar 2008 06:25:57 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from lists@c0mplx.org)
Received: from pi by home.opsec.eu with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD))
	(envelope-from <lists@c0mplx.org>)
	id 1JelYi-000CgM-Qt; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 07:25:56 +0100
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 07:25:56 +0100
From: Kurt Jaeger <lists@c0mplx.org>
To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <20080327062556.GE3180@home.opsec.eu>
References: <47E9448F.1010304@ipfw.ru>
	<20080326142115.K34007@fledge.watson.org>
	<slrnfumcif.243h.vadim_nuclight@hostel.avtf.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <slrnfumcif.243h.vadim_nuclight@hostel.avtf.net>
Cc: 
Subject: Re: unionfs status
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 06:25:58 -0000

Vadim Goncharov wrote:
> Robert Watson wrote:

> > If you're using unionfs 
> > to take a template system and "broadcast it" to many jails, you probably don't 
> > want all the jails talking to the same syslogd, you want them each talking to 
> > their own.  When syslogd in a jail finds a disconnected socket, which is 
> > effectively what a NULL v_socket pointer means, in /var/run/log, it should be 
> > unlinking it and creating a new socket, not reusing the existing file on disk.

> This code's use in jails is primarily intended for mysql (and the like
> daemons), not syslogd (for which you said it right). Such daemons really
> require broadcasting, yep - so unionfs should support it...

Thanks for this description. So we basically have two different
uses for UNIX sockets in unionfs with jails ?

1) socket in jail to communicate only inside one jail (syslog-case)
2) socket in jail as a means of IPC between different jails (mysql-case)

Is 2) really supposed to work like this ?

-- 
pi@opsec.eu            +49 171 3101372                        12 years to go !