Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:56:40 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Vadim Goncharov <vadim_nuclight@mail.ru> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: unionfs status Message-ID: <20080327135318.R73942@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <slrnfumgvp.25r3.vadim_nuclight@hostel.avtf.net> References: <47E9448F.1010304@ipfw.ru> <20080326142115.K34007@fledge.watson.org> <slrnfumcif.243h.vadim_nuclight@hostel.avtf.net> <20080327062556.GE3180@home.opsec.eu> <slrnfumgvp.25r3.vadim_nuclight@hostel.avtf.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008, Vadim Goncharov wrote: >> Thanks for this description. So we basically have two different uses for >> UNIX sockets in unionfs with jails ? > >> 1) socket in jail to communicate only inside one jail (syslog-case) 2) >> socket in jail as a means of IPC between different jails (mysql-case) > >> Is 2) really supposed to work like this ? > > This is user's/admin's point of view, that it should work this way: one > mysql with one socket for several jails. I don't know all gory details about > how code really works. As I see it, nullfs should provide a shared socket, it is intended to provide access to the same object, and unionfs should provide independent sockets, as unionfs is intended to provide isolation. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080327135318.R73942>