Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 19:37:39 +0800 From: Aiza <aiza21@comclark.com> To: Valentin Bud <valentin.bud@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Vincent Hoffman <vince@unsane.co.uk> Subject: Re: new jail utility is available. announcement. Message-ID: <4C46DC03.1030704@comclark.com> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinBhwUmWfjBbpdY3GI-WKk2kwoE_eW27kxoS0ZH@mail.gmail.com> References: <4C452644.6060508@comclark.com> <20100720134205.3168f4f1@scorpio> <4C45EA1C.6070601@comclark.com> <20100720153209.74ec26e6@scorpio> <4C45FCE1.7010006@comclark.com> <20100720163651.0daf727d@scorpio> <AANLkTine1n4rMfnWd-oiQHe1PY2mBtGDpMdGgI_W0TR4@mail.gmail.com> <4C46BAAD.5000507@unsane.co.uk> <4C46C356.6000101@comclark.com> <AANLkTinBhwUmWfjBbpdY3GI-WKk2kwoE_eW27kxoS0ZH@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Valentin Bud wrote: > On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Aiza <aiza21@comclark.com> wrote: > >> Not yet, when I have a spare box I might, although I quite like using >>> zfs for jails as you can limit the disk usage dynamically per zfs >>> filesystem and I didnt see any support there yet, even basic support >>> like there is with ezjail would be nice. >>> >>> >> Zfs was left out because its over kill. Sparse image jails gives the same >> protection at a 10th of the overhead. >> >> > Hello community, > > ZFS shouldn't be left out. Besides limiting the disk usage dynamically per > zfs FS > you have another big advantage - snapshots. Suppose you want to upgrade > ports > is a jail and something goes kaboom you just revert to the previous working > snapshot. > I agree you can copy the image back and forth but zfs snapshots are faster > and not > that space consuming. > > The layout that I plan to use is the following: > > storage/jails > |>storage/jails/group1 > | | > | > |>storage/jails/group1/jail1 > | > |>storage/jails/group1/jail2 > | > |>storage/jails/group2 > | |> ... > | > > Group can be any kind of characteristic you want to take into account > regarding > those jails (eg. group1 - mail servers, group2 - web servers, groupX - > companyY, etc.). > You can also go with more levels of depth but for me it's enough. > > This way if your server doesn't handle all the jails you have running, > simply > buy new hardware, install FBSD (or just copy the ZFS root container over to > the new > system) and migrate the jails over. > > I am waiting for network stack virtualization to come out and dreaming about > live jails > migration in the future of FBSD :). > > I would like you to reconsider ZFS support and thanks for qjail :). > > a great day, > v What you are doing behind the jail system back using zfs, qjail does with the -z zone option right up front. And the archive and restore of qjail jails is less than 3 seconds right now. How much faster does it need to be?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C46DC03.1030704>