Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 01:54:22 +0100 From: Philipp Wuensche <cryx-freebsd@h3q.com> To: jhell <jhell@DataIX.net> Cc: Christer Solskogen <christer.solskogen@gmail.com>, freebsd-jail@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Fwd: Jailcfg - A new tool for creating small(!) jails Message-ID: <4B75F83E.4000400@h3q.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1002120250310.61799@pragry.qngnvk.ybpny> References: <c1a0d1561002110733y575d0681t4feb917deabce531@mail.gmail.com> <c1a0d1561002112323h1902248bj7be343d4e1083687@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1002120250310.61799@pragry.qngnvk.ybpny>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
jhell wrote: > > Just for some more idea's to build upon. > > You could have a thousand jails at no extra space besides one base jail > installed at 160M and using zfs snapshot and clone. with no additional > mounting needed besides the actual jail and its device directory. ;) > > The only data that is collected after that is user data which is a good > thing with no extra cost of system mount points and disk usage. Thats only true until the first update of the freebsd-userland inside the jail. The moment you need to update the freebsd-userland inside the jail, it will use additional space and all the advantages of this idea are gone. Using clone will also create a direct dependency between the snapshots and the cloned filesystems. As long as the clone exists, the snapshot has to be kept. This is only resolvable by using zfs send/recv which will, again, use additional space. greetings, Philipp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4B75F83E.4000400>