From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 14 07:09:16 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2454016A41F for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 07:09:16 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from lyndon@orthanc.ca) Received: from orthanc.ca (orthanc.ca [209.89.70.53]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A365043D46 for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 07:09:15 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from lyndon@orthanc.ca) Received: from peregrin.orthanc.ca (d216-232-211-96.bchsia.telus.net [216.232.211.96]) (authenticated bits=0) by orthanc.ca (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j8E7976s013205 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 14 Sep 2005 01:09:08 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from lyndon@orthanc.ca) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by peregrin.orthanc.ca (8.13.5.Beta0/8.13.5.Beta0) with ESMTP id j8E78vgH004911; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 00:08:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4327CA3C.6050403@geminix.org> References: <432753CF.6020001@bfoz.net> <4327CA3C.6050403@geminix.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v734) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Lyndon Nerenberg Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 00:08:56 -0700 To: Uwe Doering X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.734) X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=ham version=3.0.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.4 (2005-06-05) on orthanc.ca Cc: Brandon Fosdick , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Jail to jail network performance? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 07:09:16 -0000 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