Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 22:13:02 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Nikos Vassiliadis <nvass9573@gmx.com> Cc: virtualization@freebsd.org Subject: Re: VIMAGE Message-ID: <49FE795E.9040902@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <49FDDD02.3090803@gmx.com> 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> <49FDDD02.3090803@gmx.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nikos Vassiliadis wrote: > 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? at this time yes
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?49FE795E.9040902>