Re: unionfs status
- From: Kurt Jaeger <lists@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 07:25:56 +0100
Vadim Goncharov wrote:
Robert Watson wrote:
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 ?
--
pi@xxxxxxxx +49 171 3101372 12 years to go !
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: unionfs status
- From: Julian Elischer
- Re: unionfs status
- From: Vadim Goncharov
- Re: unionfs status
- References:
- unionfs status
- From: Alexander V. Chernikov
- Re: unionfs status
- From: Robert Watson
- Re: unionfs status
- From: Vadim Goncharov
- unionfs status
- Prev by Date: Re: unionfs status
- Next by Date: Re: unionfs status
- Previous by thread: Re: unionfs status
- Next by thread: Re: unionfs status
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
