Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 27 Jan 2016 02:14:18 +0000
From:      bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org
To:        freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   [Bug 206654] sysutils/qjail speed up jail creation and other fixes
Message-ID:  <bug-206654-13-z8HIUzNoss@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-206654-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
References:  <bug-206654-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D206654

--- Comment #1 from Joe Barbish <qjail1@a1poweruser.com> ---
Thank you Steven Hartland for taking the time and effort to submit your pat=
ch.
I am currently out of the country on a government contract which ends March=
 30
2016. I will not be able to address this until after then.=20

My original plans are to wait until Release 11.0 is published because it's
suppose to included an updated VIMAGE that is included as part of the base
system. This will require testing of the qjail VIMAGE function that may res=
ult
in some changes.=20=20=20

Change # 1. Previously assigned IP verification routine for ipv4 & ipv6.
In general I approval of what your trying to do.=20

Change # 2. Increase the max duplication limit from 100 to 254. This value =
has
nothing to do with the max value in the last octal in ipv4 ip addresses. It
just controls the loop for automatically creating jails with the same jail =
name
prefix. The user must be aware of the starting ipv4 address stays valid when
bumped by 1 for each iteration of the duplication loop. The logic behind the
100 max value is to prevent the user from entering an erroneous value. In y=
our
case of creating thousands of jails is unique. In general I see no problem =
of
increasing the max limit to 254.=20=20

Change # 3. "Ignore missing definitions in some situations.
When running parallel qjail creates we we're seeing random failures due to
temporary definition files, which then disappeared. We deal with this by
allowing read-definition to fail."=20

With out further testing research I can not accept your solution. To me, The
symptoms you are experiencing indicates that the same jail name is being
created by error during parallel creates. A review of the qjail create comm=
ands
being run through different terminal sessions need further inspection. Plea=
se
describe in greater detail just what your doing giving the qjail commands
issued that recreate the problem.

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.=



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-206654-13-z8HIUzNoss>