Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 19:30:29 +0100 From: Michael Grimm <trashcan@ellael.org> To: freebsd-questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: How to define the order of starting jails? Message-ID: <EDF63018-005B-464C-A99B-A16B7274CDF4@ellael.org> In-Reply-To: <20151221161655.GA33124@becker.bs.l> References: <5D6BA0FE-60E1-4C6B-906B-BB62A1AB9BE8@odo.in-berlin.de> <20151221161655.GA33124@becker.bs.l>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bertram Scharpf <lists@bertram-scharpf.de> wrote: >=20 > On Sunday, 20. Dec 2015, 17:50:28 +0100, Michael Grimm wrote: >> But I am bit stuck in finding a way to start my jails in a >> pre-defined order (e.g. first DNS, then mail, =E2=80=A6). Well, I >> can achieve that during boot time by using jail_list=3D"dns >> mail =E2=80=A6" in rc.conf. But, this is respected during boot >> time, *only*. Whenever I do run a "jail -rc '*'" that >> shutdown and starting order becomes arbitrary. It doesn't >> follow the sequence of my jail definitions in jail.conf, >> either. >=20 > When I hear something about dependencies what first comes > into my mind is to map it to a hierarchy, in this case maybe > nested jails. Is this approach legitimate or is it too > weird? I need to start my jail running UNBOUND (besides NSD), first. Here = UNBOUND acts as the *only* local, trustworthy resolver for all the other = service jails. (Their starting sequence is uninteresting to me, though.) = Reason for that prerequisite is: I am using DNSSEC/DANE. Thus, hierarchical jails are a solution, but that would mean, that I = will end up with more running DNS jails. Doable, but I'm somehow lazy = ;-) Thanks and regards, Michael=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?EDF63018-005B-464C-A99B-A16B7274CDF4>