Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 08:55:18 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Brandon Fosdick <bfoz@terrandev.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ca> Subject: Re: Jail to jail network performance? Message-ID: <20050926085420.M34322@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <43376791.3050609@terrandev.com> References: <432753CF.6020001@bfoz.net> <4327CA3C.6050403@geminix.org> <E1D91BF4-2EC3-4535-A83E-A0D136C87B5E@orthanc.ca> <20050914110102.W33820@fledge.watson.org> <43376791.3050609@terrandev.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005, Brandon Fosdick wrote: > 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? Last I checked, MySQL used solely TCP and UNIX domain sockets for communication, and not System V IPC. I believe PostgreSQL, however, used System V IPC. Robert N M Watson
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050926085420.M34322>