Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 21:05:54 +0300 From: Nikos Vassiliadis <nvass9573@gmx.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: virtualization@freebsd.org Subject: Re: VIMAGE Message-ID: <49FDDD02.3090803@gmx.com> In-Reply-To: <49FDD9B9.7090403@elischer.org> References: <20090413.220932.74699777.sthaug@nethelp.no> <49E57076.7040509@elischer.org> <20090424202923.235660@gmx.net> <200904242249.27640.zec@icir.org> <20090425133006.311010@gmx.net> <20090502131259.31160@gmx.net> <49FC78DA.2010201@elischer.org> <20090503103244.44760@gmx.net> <49FDD9B9.7090403@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Julian Elischer wrote: > Peter Cornelius wrote: >> Re... >> >>> The situation is that right now jail and vimage are >>> orthogonal (ish) however in the future, >>> vimage will become a set of options on jail. >> >> Ah. SO it probably is kinda useless to try and stick a couple of jails >> 'inside' a vimage. > > no you will be able to nest jails. > some of them may have the vimage options and some may not. What about vimages without jails? I can imagine some applications of VIMAGE which completely lack user-space processing. If I recall correctly a jail exists as far there is at least one process associated with it. Would that be feasible? Having a vimage with no processes?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?49FDDD02.3090803>