Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 10:15:07 +0200 From: Mel Flynn <mel.flynn+fbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: Brent Bloxam <brentb@beanfield.com> Subject: Re: Multiple instances of MySQL Message-ID: <200904121015.07443.mel.flynn%2Bfbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net> In-Reply-To: <49DE4FE8.8090303@beanfield.com> References: <49DAC610.6020404@pixelhammer.com> <200904081117.58218.mel.flynn%2Bfbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net> <49DE4FE8.8090303@beanfield.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday 09 April 2009 21:43:36 Brent Bloxam wrote: > Mel Flynn wrote: > > Any reason a jail can't be used? This would allow sharing the binary > > using null or union fs, little overhead, yet seperated from host install > > and no maintenance of port installed files, like rc.d/mysql-server. > > Unionfs, unix sockets and flush operations don't like each other from > what I know, so make sure your database directory and socket aren't > going to be located on a unionfs mount and you should be okay. Someone > feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I definitely haven't > been able to get MySQL to play nice with unionfs Haven't tried. It makes no sense to me to union/null fs /var and /tmp. Just /usr/local to share binaries or /usr in case you also want to share OS binaries, but for a dedicated jail, the gain of that is minimal (OS upgrade doesn't require an extra installworld with jail DESTDIR, but mergemaster still needs to be done and requires most operator attention). -- Mel
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200904121015.07443.mel.flynn%2Bfbsd.questions>