Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 01:52:24 -0300 (ADT) From: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> To: Matthew Emmerton <matt@gsicomp.on.ca> Cc: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeVSD: Anyone working on porting this? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0008160149560.92127-100000@thelab.hub.org> In-Reply-To: <00fa01c00574$76a03550$1200a8c0@matt>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 13 Aug 2000, Matthew Emmerton wrote: > > The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> wrote: > > > > > >http://www.freevsd.org/ > > > > Doesn't jail(8) achieve this? > > Here's me with egg on my face -- I've just ported the base package to > FreeBSD. > > On the surface, it looks like jail(8) might just do what FreeVSD aims to > provide. However, since jail(8) is only in 4.x, and lots of people > (including myself) are still running 3.x, FreeVSD may be a good solution for > those who aren't ready to upgrade to 4.x. > > I think the answer to this will come soon - I haven't waded through > the patches that FreeVSD makes to killall, login, kill, > chmod/chown/chgrp, inetd and various kvm routines. These patches will > tell if FreeVSD is just "jail(8)-for-Linux." okay, I just read scan'd through the pages for jail(8) and wonder how it would deal with something like running sendmail on port 25 for IP # vs IP #+1, writing its mail to a Cyrus mail spool, for instance ... My understanding/feel of FreeVSD is that it essentially built a "virtual machine" similar to the way that VMware would do it, without all the overhead ... but each 'virtual machine' would be attached to a unique IP, and have its full range of ports still accessible to it ... From your experiences with FreeVSD so far, is this a correct assumption, or is it "just another jail(8)"? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0008160149560.92127-100000>