Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>