From owner-freebsd-jail@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jan 28 15:47:57 2015
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-jail@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-jail@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9840E7E;
 Wed, 28 Jan 2015 15:47:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client CN "wonkity.com", Issuer "wonkity.com" (not verified))
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C9DB5FB;
 Wed, 28 Jan 2015 15:47:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by wonkity.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t0SFltMj017846
 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO);
 Wed, 28 Jan 2015 08:47:55 -0700 (MST)
 (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com)
Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost)
 by wonkity.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/Submit) with ESMTP id t0SFltMk017843;
 Wed, 28 Jan 2015 08:47:55 -0700 (MST)
 (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com)
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 08:47:55 -0700 (MST)
From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com>
To: Allan Jude <allanjude@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: preferred jail management tool
In-Reply-To: <54C71BC9.5010103@freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.11.1501280833080.98963@wonkity.com>
References: <CACfj5vKjiQHsy9VbOKFFcrBpyr3dmbkOOxTxCYhSyZrnrjRiaQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHieY7TyxzC0aK-ErY2EbCmTJPykk_9G7Gd=CrZ9yxQ-77PynA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150127012347.GA4940@lonesome.com>
 <20150127141239.V77290@sola.nimnet.asn.au>
 <54C71BC9.5010103@freebsd.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (BSF 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3
 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Wed, 28 Jan 2015 08:47:55 -0700 (MST)
Cc: freebsd-jail@freebsd.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-jail@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion about FreeBSD jail\(8\)" <freebsd-jail.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-jail>,
 <mailto:freebsd-jail-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-jail/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-jail@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-jail-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-jail>,
 <mailto:freebsd-jail-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 15:47:57 -0000

On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, Allan Jude wrote:

> Ezjail still works perfectly fine. It is moderately actively maintained,
> it works very well with ZFS. The value of having a single basejail,
> rather than multiple is slightly diminished by the fact that we all have
> more disk space than we used to, and the fact that ZFS could clone a
> common dataset to save some space, but, when it comes time to upgrade
> the common basejail is useful. The process can be a bit awkward at
> times, but it generally works fine.

The single basejail is ezjail's killer feature.  Agreed, it's not so 
much a matter of disk space as of making it possible to upgrade all the 
jails at one pass.