On 31.03.13 22:01, Miroslav Lachman wrote: >> So I guess, I am out of luck here, because users used to think of their >> jails as what they saw in the hostname field on jls. If I am writing >> tools that use jail_getid to map the jailname to the jid, it will never >> match that hostname and I also can not copy the hostname to the jailname. > > I understand what you are talking about, but jails in these days are > something different from what jails were at the begining in 4.x days and > users must accept that jailname is something different than hostname.
> In these days, you can have jails with many IP addresses or without IP > address. Hostname needn't to be unique etc. > > Dot (.) is not allowed in jailname because of hierarchical jails, > where dot is used as hierarchy separator. Humm, this seems a strange thing to answer to my question. Once you see jails as virtual servers (which I understand is not the only way to do, but the biased way I and most jail users I talk to happen to deploy them in huge quantities), the natural approach to name them is via their hostname. I find it hard to grasp to tell them "don't" ;) And still I find the choice of '.' as a separator unfortunate, '/' springs in mind, but there might have been reasons. I also understand that the hostname is not an unique identifier anymore, still for many (if not most) setups the mapping is bijective. My problem now is that referring to a jail (in a sense of virtual host) becomes unintuitive. I want to do stuff with my vhost "example.com" but have to call it "example" or "example_com". Even worse with "www.example.com" which now needs to be an ambigous "www" or some other mapping of '.' to something else. If I want to write tools that accept intuitive jail identifiers, I would have to implement heuristics that match the hostname once the identifier contains '.' and I can't find a hierarchical jail with that name. > Plain jls without any options should be used just for backward > compatibility with old scripts, because its output is insufficient for > todays jails. (only one IP is shown and no jailname) > > jls -v or jls -s is better with new jails. Maybe it would be easier for me to understand if I knew, how those jails "in these days" are supposed to work, what the overall vision is for users to integrate them in their workflow. Besides a wish list that doubles as todo list in https://wiki.freebsd.org/Jails and an attempted handbook section rewrite, there seems to be little in that regard. Maybe I just missed out on the discussions or could not find the relevant documents? Maybe meeting at a BSDcon over a beer would help ;) Regards, erdgeist _______________________________________________ freebsd-jail@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-jail To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-jail-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
