From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Feb 27 12:52:36 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from utility.clubscholarship.com (utility.clubscholarship.com [198.78.70.175]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FD2837B423; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:52:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (root@localhost) by utility.clubscholarship.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1RKnIk67973; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:49:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from root@utility.clubscholarship.com) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:49:18 -0800 (PST) From: Patrick Thomas To: Cc: Subject: using vnconfig devices instead of partitions for jails ? Message-ID: <20020227124518.X67780-100000@utility.clubscholarship.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I would like to put a large number of jails (16 or 20) on a server for testing purposes. I have two options so far: create 16 or 20 partitions OR just put them all in one partition, but the downside of that is that then I cannot enforce disk usage between jails. So at this point, 16-20 partitions seems the safest route. But, what about using vnconfig to create files of fixed sizes and then mounting them? Is this reasonable ? Is there a limit to how many vnconfig files I can mount as filesystems ? Is there a way to mount a directory _inside_ a vnconfig mount as a 'proc' filesystem (since the jail needs proc in order for ps, etc., to work?) Any comments about this idea in general are appreciated. --PT To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message