Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:16:53 -0500 From: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> To: Aiza <aiza21@comclark.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Vincent Hoffman <vince@unsane.co.uk> Subject: Re: new jail utility is available. announcement. Message-ID: <AANLkTimfo5MSIExd0NvmTnjCRgBFi26h0nRVF0tgJgty@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4C46C356.6000101@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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 4:52 AM, 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. You didn't factor in slowness due to having a file-backed filesystem. While probably pretty low, it's definitely there and not good in an io heavy jail. Also, the host will have to mount a UFS based FS, and cache it so you're going to have increased memory usage. Ideal setup for an io intensive jaill(eg database) is to be bound to compressed ZFS file-system, not a sparse image located on such a setup. I'm not sure what overhead you're referring too. If it's hard to tie into your application, you are probably correct, but from a host perspective you are increasing overhead. There are advantages to sparse or raw file as well, it would be nice to have a choice. -- Adam Vande More
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTimfo5MSIExd0NvmTnjCRgBFi26h0nRVF0tgJgty>