Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 19:38:25 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: performance of jailed processes Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040330193604.1917D-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <xzpr7v9q4kx.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote:
> Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> writes:
> > If you plug 'YOUR_IP' with variations, does it change things?
>=20
> Aha! using the primary IP address works fine, but using one of the jail
> IPs does not.
>=20
> (before anyone asks, I've already spent an entire day verifying that
> this is not a firewall issue)=20
I'd be very interested in knowing if changing your application to bind
alternative IP addresses rather than using jail to force the binding to an
alternative address changes the performance results. I.e., are we looking
at a problem with additional aliases and not a problem with jail at all...=
=20
Another thing I'd be interested to know is: if you instrument the
application to get the socket buffer size using getsockopt() and
SO_{RCV,SND}BUF in the in-jail and out-of-jail cases.
Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects
robert@fledge.watson.org Senior Research Scientist, McAfee Research
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040330193604.1917D-100000>