From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 31 04:43:11 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FEF016A4CF for ; Sun, 31 Oct 2004 04:43:11 +0000 (GMT) Received: from alpha.siliconlandmark.com (alpha.siliconlandmark.com [209.69.98.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34A7C43D2F for ; Sun, 31 Oct 2004 04:43:11 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from andy@siliconlandmark.com) Received: from alpha.siliconlandmark.com (andy@localhost [127.0.0.1]) i9V4h9vo002908; Sun, 31 Oct 2004 00:43:09 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from andy@siliconlandmark.com) Received: from localhost (andy@localhost)i9V4h8JL002905; Sun, 31 Oct 2004 00:43:09 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from andy@siliconlandmark.com) X-Authentication-Warning: alpha.siliconlandmark.com: andy owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 00:43:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Andre Guibert de Bruet To: Jens Rehsack In-Reply-To: <4183BF18.3010509@liwing.de> Message-ID: <20041031003429.A82803@alpha.siliconlandmark.com> References: <27734.1099147280@critter.freebsd.dk> <4183BF18.3010509@liwing.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADSUP: Filesystem rototiling over X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 04:43:11 -0000 On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Jens Rehsack wrote: > Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >>>>> Oh, that means for each update you have to stop all jails running >>>>> on those mounts? How useful could that be on production machines? >>>> >>>> I don't know, that depends on what you use jails for. >>> >>> Web-Service(s), Mail-Service(s), Name-Service, ... >>> >>> And on each update I had to stop the services, shutting down the jail, >>> unmount each ro-bunch, mount rw, update, unmount, remount ro-bunches, >>> starting jails & services. >> >> Then this is probably not a good thing for your installation. > > Maybe someone could point some usages where it's a good thing... It would be very useful for a re-imaging system on a shared-hosting host, with numerous jails. You could write scripts to have an end-userrestore a jail back to its original state through this mount. In this case, the filesystem wouldn't be terribly useful, except when re-imaging, so unmounting all mounts isn't that big of a deal. I do agree that it would be nice to be able to have one RW mount and a ton of RO mounts. I would even be willing to settle for having to mount the RW mount first and have this operating fail if the filesystem is already mounted RO somewhere. Andy | Andre Guibert de Bruet | Enterprise Software Consultant > | Silicon Landmark, LLC. | http://siliconlandmark.com/ >