Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 03:09:28 +0200 From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: performance of jailed processes Message-ID: <xzpwu51om9j.fsf@dwp.des.no> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040330193604.1917D-100000@fledge.watson.org> (Robert Watson's message of "Tue, 30 Mar 2004 19:38:25 -0500 (EST)") References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040330193604.1917D-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> writes: > I'd be very interested in knowing if changing your application to bind > alternative IP addresses rather than using jail to force the binding to an > alternative address changes the performance results. I.e., are we looking > at a problem with additional aliases and not a problem with jail at all... I reproduced the problem with scp, then threw in -oBindAddress=3Dfoo. It seems you're on to something; running it outside any jail but bound to one of the aliases gave the same symptoms as running it from inside a jail. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpwu51om9j.fsf>