Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 06:51:37 +0000 (UTC) From: Vadim Goncharov <vadim_nuclight@mail.ru> To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: unionfs status Message-ID: <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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Kurt Jaeger! On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 07:25:56 +0100; Kurt Jaeger wrote about 'Re: unionfs status': >>> If you're using unionfs >>> to take a template system and "broadcast it" to many jails, you probably don't >>> want all the jails talking to the same syslogd, you want them each talking to >>> their own. When syslogd in a jail finds a disconnected socket, which is >>> effectively what a NULL v_socket pointer means, in /var/run/log, it should be >>> unlinking it and creating a new socket, not reusing the existing file on disk. >> This code's use in jails is primarily intended for mysql (and the like >> daemons), not syslogd (for which you said it right). Such daemons really >> require broadcasting, yep - so unionfs should support it... > 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. -- WBR, Vadim Goncharov. ICQ#166852181 mailto:vadim_nuclight@mail.ru [Moderator of RU.ANTI-ECOLOGY][FreeBSD][http://antigreen.org][LJ:/nuclight]
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?slrnfumgvp.25r3.vadim_nuclight>