Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 00:08:56 -0700 From: Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ca> To: Uwe Doering <gemini@geminix.org> Cc: Brandon Fosdick <bfoz@bfoz.net>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Jail to jail network performance? Message-ID: <E1D91BF4-2EC3-4535-A83E-A0D136C87B5E@orthanc.ca> In-Reply-To: <4327CA3C.6050403@geminix.org> References: <432753CF.6020001@bfoz.net> <4327CA3C.6050403@geminix.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sep 13, 2005, at 11:59 PM, Uwe Doering wrote: > Now, for security reasons jails normally are confined in separate > filesystems, or at least in separate parts of a common one. So in > case of MySQL you would have to use TCP sockets to communicate > between jails. This socket type typically consumes more CPU > because of TCP's protocol overhead. However, whether you would > actually notice any difference in speed basically depends on how > much excess CPU power there is available on that server. Ignoring security (or filesystem namespace issues) I will just note that using named sockets for local IPC is a Good Thing. When I worked at Messaging Direct I taught sendmail to speak LMTP over named sockets, and our local delivery rate (to our IMAP server) went up by a factor of 10. It would be really cool if we could figure out a way to do AF_UNIX between jails, but I confess to not having thought about any of the implications ... (Maybe netgraph can help here?) --lyndon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E1D91BF4-2EC3-4535-A83E-A0D136C87B5E>