Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 08:47:55 -0700 (MST) From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> To: Allan Jude <allanjude@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-jail@freebsd.org Subject: Re: preferred jail management tool Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.11.1501280833080.98963@wonkity.com> In-Reply-To: <54C71BC9.5010103@freebsd.org> References: <CACfj5vKjiQHsy9VbOKFFcrBpyr3dmbkOOxTxCYhSyZrnrjRiaQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHieY7TyxzC0aK-ErY2EbCmTJPykk_9G7Gd=CrZ9yxQ-77PynA@mail.gmail.com> <20150127012347.GA4940@lonesome.com> <20150127141239.V77290@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <54C71BC9.5010103@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, Allan Jude wrote: > Ezjail still works perfectly fine. It is moderately actively maintained, > it works very well with ZFS. The value of having a single basejail, > rather than multiple is slightly diminished by the fact that we all have > more disk space than we used to, and the fact that ZFS could clone a > common dataset to save some space, but, when it comes time to upgrade > the common basejail is useful. The process can be a bit awkward at > times, but it generally works fine. The single basejail is ezjail's killer feature. Agreed, it's not so much a matter of disk space as of making it possible to upgrade all the jails at one pass.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.11.1501280833080.98963>