From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Fri Jan 15 11:18:19 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 405A8A825F8 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 11:18:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from aimass@yabarana.com) Received: from mail-io0-x234.google.com (mail-io0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14E491737 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 11:18:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from aimass@yabarana.com) Received: by mail-io0-x234.google.com with SMTP id 77so451841169ioc.2 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 03:18:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yabarana-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=/c0+4/R9Rg0yLPtu6BguAOsmDzi6+H7KeaZvdVp77mo=; b=JC8snDGnNcIT+fen3WfMlCIdzGtL41xo/hfQs62wlDWNU5TUbxP1qcz9qOAOOd8P2K BlV2Ki4PMDi9CvD7GEhV0mPgZzA+kx0kKNmbY0wDoKweX/uyG09VchVlGsqxU9sVfHjA GpEU5yVusrdEXhHBpKwemCETZkdoEemNVjNtaUz1k1N+3dA7ZVP4JjYKW5lUQLHvSq4Z 60t1fFIHuUS18ZliiWDjegaNF1zNygXcm08qa0NSFu5Nd7vL3+jbzIqLGXvB6iefGw3A wN0KcawarYk3CybtHSwIaapjTwP44jaADCuOtrGVfLRUrHLm/PgKu8G+bKHALX28yUKM pnmQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=/c0+4/R9Rg0yLPtu6BguAOsmDzi6+H7KeaZvdVp77mo=; b=TNVqrIww5b5477Vs0CaLoBx7sos3D0iau1Y8gAwWb19IKBfNAWl5ZPBnjgeqcP8Kcv qklueRLkripYN7atqw65Bov9M8z3M8aoJozWMpbw0llhkRJrcbRfjozrogasKx4RJQUo iYenoCXlX/vOVMdSfufB6Vz2V4RgE1GSxy+lgqRZ/iOPc6VVXoUuYbulOoAMOnpPUiAn 6b2w5LxJ1t3QZCcIWv4uutaf7AdLZjkvXsYk1PD4JaSB3T2DymHu8dI6U5BNJnZovH3g cXyjHKRFXrNIN2+6Loav9/TJPKiHXm/c4b/bUptCUF+Y7R43aqIViWv+hObjdqmrAbkJ jjAw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnhdq3DH1vJHB8FGT0KcnYUXJUx3gkoWa/gwU9bO0WBZeCJSyY28oy4cFg20L09faWSy3XMKymywEpEbMJAJtpkOQ90Nw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.152.142 with SMTP id a136mr9992222ioe.84.1452856698322; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 03:18:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.107.152.142 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 03:18:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5697B6DE.6000706@hiwaay.net> References: <5696740B.5070404@hiwaay.net> <86si20mza9.fsf@gmail.com> <5697B6DE.6000706@hiwaay.net> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 06:18:18 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: 64 bit linux binary support From: Alejandro Imass To: "William A. Mahaffey III" Cc: "FreeBSD Questions !!!!" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 11:18:19 -0000 On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 9:53 AM, William A. Mahaffey III wrote: > On 01/14/16 08:27, Alejandro Imass wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 1:49 AM, Malcolm Matalka >> wrote: >>> >>> Alejandro Imass writes: >>> >>>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 10:56 AM, William A. Mahaffey III >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> [...] >> My response is pretty clear: Docker is pretty much like FreeBSD Jails >> so why not use FBSD Jails (e.g. with EzJail) in the first place >> instead of going through the trouble of getting a Linux-like jail >> system to run on FreeBSD. And if you want/need Docker so bad then it >> would probably be better to run on Linux to begin with. >> [...] > > Hmmmm .... It's not so clear to me, but that might be a deficiency @ my end > :-/. I would like to run 64-bit binaries compiled on/for linux boxen > (specifically CentOS/RHEL 6) on my FreeBSD boxen, currently 3 in number, all > various AMD64 CPUs, all running 9.3R. My question only involved docker to > the extent that the docker wiki page alludes to apparently newly available > (as of last summer) 64-bit linux binary support, which is what I am really > interested in. > Perhaps you should look into bhyve, the FBSD Hypervisor > I *AM* (separately) interested in docker, for various reasons. Specifically, > I would want to use it as a lightweight VM system, which I *think* works > under Linux. I.e. you can run a container of a non-native OS if it is CPU > compatible w/ the host CPU. AFAIK this is not the case. The reason Docker is lightweight to begin with is because: "Containers running on a single machine all share the same operating system kernel so they start instantly and make more efficient use of RAM" Where did you get this info about Docker being able to run a different OS? As I see it, Docker is nothing more than a copy of the FBSD Jail system ported to Linux and with some sophistications that make it easy to manage the images. Most of this can be done with FBSD Jails and especially with things like EzJail. > As I understand things, that is not feasible w/ > jails, although I have found some URL's which claim otherwise. Clarification > on that point would be welcome as well. I have asked before & been told it > was *NOT* feasible, but maybe things have changed or I am missing something. > TIA & have a good one. > IMO virtualization is not lightweight by definition. So you either virtualize fully or pseudo-virtualize with chroot-like systems. In this perspective I see Docker as nothing more than a sophisticated chroot system just like FBSD Jails, only Linux-based and less mature ;-) Best, Alejandro Imass