Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 07:25:56 +0100 From: Kurt Jaeger <lists@c0mplx.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: unionfs status Message-ID: <20080327062556.GE3180@home.opsec.eu> In-Reply-To: <slrnfumcif.243h.vadim_nuclight@hostel.avtf.net> References: <47E9448F.1010304@ipfw.ru> <20080326142115.K34007@fledge.watson.org> <slrnfumcif.243h.vadim_nuclight@hostel.avtf.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Vadim Goncharov wrote: > Robert Watson wrote: > > If you're using unionfs > > to take a template system and "broadcast it" to many jails, you probably don't > > want all the jails talking to the same syslogd, you want them each talking to > > their own. When syslogd in a jail finds a disconnected socket, which is > > effectively what a NULL v_socket pointer means, in /var/run/log, it should be > > unlinking it and creating a new socket, not reusing the existing file on disk. > This code's use in jails is primarily intended for mysql (and the like > daemons), not syslogd (for which you said it right). Such daemons really > require broadcasting, yep - so unionfs should support it... Thanks for this description. So we basically have two different uses for UNIX sockets in unionfs with jails ? 1) socket in jail to communicate only inside one jail (syslog-case) 2) socket in jail as a means of IPC between different jails (mysql-case) Is 2) really supposed to work like this ? -- pi@opsec.eu +49 171 3101372 12 years to go !
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080327062556.GE3180>