Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 13:10:31 +0100 From: krad <kraduk@googlemail.com> To: Aiza <aiza21@comclark.com> Cc: Vincent Hoffman <vince@unsane.co.uk>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Valentin Bud <valentin.bud@gmail.com> Subject: Re: new jail utility is available. announcement. Message-ID: <AANLkTikP_d4Q3KkOAFGGOdWhIY_Ok7e4zgwn8-kxXAIZ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4C46DC03.1030704@comclark.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> <4C46DC03.1030704@comclark.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 21 July 2010 12:37, Aiza <aiza21@comclark.com> wrote: > 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. >> > That all depends on your deltas. We do hot backups (lock, flush, snap, unlock) of our oracle dbs on solaris with zfs snap shots. The do take up a lot of room but thats becasue we do a lot of writes gigs a day. > >> 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? > > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > that depends on how much data is in the jail surely.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTikP_d4Q3KkOAFGGOdWhIY_Ok7e4zgwn8-kxXAIZ>