From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 9 22:05:16 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E08DF16A41F for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2005 22:05:16 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tataz@tataz.chchile.org) Received: from postfix4-2.free.fr (postfix4-2.free.fr [213.228.0.176]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AA6F43D5F for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2005 22:05:16 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tataz@tataz.chchile.org) Received: from tatooine.tataz.chchile.org (vol75-8-82-233-239-98.fbx.proxad.net [82.233.239.98]) by postfix4-2.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 152E0323424; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 00:05:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: by tatooine.tataz.chchile.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5DB08405B; Wed, 10 Aug 2005 00:05:26 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 00:05:26 +0200 From: Jeremie Le Hen To: Brooks Davis Message-ID: <20050809220526.GD45385@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> References: <20050809214330.GZ45385@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <20050809215939.GA15004@odin.ac.hmc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050809215939.GA15004@odin.ac.hmc.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Cc: drvince@anonymnet.net, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Jeremie Le Hen Subject: Re: More into /etc/rc.d/jail X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 22:05:17 -0000 Hi Brooks, > > This was recently discussed in some thread. The problem with this > > approach is that file backed md(4) devices are too slow to make it > > standard. This is why this won't go into FreeBSD, IMHO. > > Nonsense. Integrating support for mounting file backed MD file systems > at boot would be quite logical even if md(4) devices are slow. In a > large portion of cases, the overhead isn't relevent compared to the > administrative freedom granted by using files instead of partitions. Ok. Then Stefan Bethke's script (see his mail in this thread) might be a better solution since it is a more generic. However it is not explicitely bound to jails has initially requested, so a note in jail(8) manpage would be worth in this case. Regards, -- Jeremie Le Hen < jeremie at le-hen dot org >< ttz at chchile dot org >