From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 26 03:14:29 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1928D16A41F; Mon, 26 Sep 2005 03:14:29 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bfoz@terrandev.com) Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net (sccrmhc12.comcast.net [204.127.202.56]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9708243D48; Mon, 26 Sep 2005 03:14:28 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bfoz@terrandev.com) Received: from [192.168.0.5] (c-24-6-134-233.hsd1.ca.comcast.net[24.6.134.233]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with ESMTP id <2005092603142601200qr9g9e>; Mon, 26 Sep 2005 03:14:27 +0000 Message-ID: <43376791.3050609@terrandev.com> Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 20:14:25 -0700 From: Brandon Fosdick User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050908) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Watson References: <432753CF.6020001@bfoz.net> <4327CA3C.6050403@geminix.org> <20050914110102.W33820@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20050914110102.W33820@fledge.watson.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.92.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Lyndon Nerenberg Subject: Re: Jail to jail network performance? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 03:14:29 -0000 Robert Watson wrote: > There are several ways you can do it, but they generally fall into two > classes of activies: > > (1) Modifying the name space exclusion assumption for jails, so that the > file system name spaces overlap. One way to do this is with nullfs. > > (2) Having a daemon or tool that runs outside of the jail and brokers > communication between the jails. One example might be a daemon that > inserts a UNIX domain socket into both jails and then provides > references to shared IPC objects between the two "by request". > Another example might be a daemon or tool that responds to a request > and creates a hard link from a socket/fifo endpoint visible in one > jail to a name visible in another jail, perhaps when setting up the > jail. The former requires more infrastructure, but the latter is less > flexible. The jail(8) man page says that if the MIB security.jail.sysvipc_allowed=1 processes inside a jail can use IPC to talk to stuff in other jails. How does that affect mysql in a jail? Do I need this enabled to run mysql?