Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 20:27:04 -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.1040330202616.1917E-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <xzpwu51om9j.fsf@dwp.des.no>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> writes: > > 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... > > I reproduced the problem with scp, then threw in -oBindAddress=foo. It > seems you're on to something; running it outside any jail but bound to > one of the aliases gave the same symptoms as running it from inside a > jail. Are your aliases configured on lo0, or on the ethernet interface? Could we see some excerpted ifconfig output for your interface (perhaps only ten -- first five, last five of the 2000+ IP addresses :-). Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects robert@fledge.watson.org Senior Research Scientist, McAfee Researchhelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040330202616.1917E-100000>