Re: jail: external and localhost distinction
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Robert Watson wrote: RW> > Thank you for clarification, now I see this is actually expected behaviour RW> > :) RW> > RW> > Would then starting second jail with the same root and, say, 127.10.0.1 as RW> > an address be a workaround? RW> RW> There's no technical reason you can't have more than one jail using the same RW> file system root, and even IP -- you'll find that ps(1) in one jail can't RW> see processes in the other (and can't signal, etc) but otherwise works as RW> expected. Of course, any given process has to be a member of at most one of RW> the two. But, in the case of IP sharing, I suppose, the second process tries to bind to the same port will got "socket already in use", won't it? -- Sincerely, D.Marck [DM5020, MCK-RIPE, DM3-RIPN] [ FreeBSD committer: ma...@freebsd.org ] *** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- ma...@rinet.ru *** ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: jail: external and localhost distinction
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote: On Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Robert Watson wrote: RW> > Thank you for clarification, now I see this is actually expected behaviour RW> > :) RW> > RW> > Would then starting second jail with the same root and, say, 127.10.0.1 as RW> > an address be a workaround? RW> RW> There's no technical reason you can't have more than one jail using the same RW> file system root, and even IP -- you'll find that ps(1) in one jail can't RW> see processes in the other (and can't signal, etc) but otherwise works as RW> expected. Of course, any given process has to be a member of at most one of RW> the two. But, in the case of IP sharing, I suppose, the second process tries to bind to the same port will got "socket already in use", won't it? In general, if two processes independently bind the same port but using two specific IPs, then there won't be a conflict and both will be allowed to succeed. Conflicts arise if there are two bindings of the same address and port, so if both jails use the same IP and one binds it, then the other will get a socket already in use error, yes. FYI, I see that Bjoern has now committed the multi-IP patch for Jail to 7-STABLE, which should make Jails a lot more flexible. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FBSD 7.1 XEON Quad Core
Todorov wrote: > Hi list, > > what are the good make.conf options for the Xeon Quad core. > > CPUTYPE=core2 ?? It's probably better to use CFLAGS+=-O2 -mtune=native > Also is there any benefit to use AMD64 platform for this CPU? > (Java Diablo + PGSQL 8.1 + Apache + Apache Tomcat) Yes, if you have (or plan to have) more than 3 GB of memory. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
HEADS UP: multi-IPv4/v6/no-IP jails now in 7-STABLE
Hi, what has started a long time ago with patches from various people, was started, abandoned, resumed finally found an end. I am happy to hereby announce that the multi-IPv4/v6/no-IP jails work has been merged to 7-STABLE and thus can be used in FreeBSD 7 without the need to maintain or apply patches from now on. This also means that the updated jails will be included in 7.2 release. This update gives you (short selection): - zero, one or multi-IP jails. - IPv4 and IPv6 support. - cpuset support for jails. - jail names and states to ease administration. - 32bit compat on 64bit, jail v1 compat, .. You'll find a longer summary about all the new features and how to use them in a posting from December (you should really read it): http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-jail/2008-December/000631.html Since the above posting, multiple PRs had been addressed and fixes include - SIOCGIFADDR ioctl handling which fixes the "samba inside jails problem" - no more arp and ndp information disclosure - updated rc.conf framework (fully backward compatible in 7), see man 5 rc.conf and /etc/defaults/rc.conf. - various documentation/man page updates - ... I'd like to thank everyone who had helped to make this possible! If you like the work, mayhap even use it for your business, or just want to support FreeBSD, you may want to visit http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/ and help donating some money. Enjoy your new jails! (and don't try to escape - you sure won't succeed;) /bz -- Bjoern A. Zeeb The greatest risk is not taking one. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
make installkernel broken
Hi, I merged a change I had tested in my working but not a vanilla stable/7 tree. This broke make installkernel. I am currently investigating if it's easily fixable w/o side effects or I'll back it out in a bit. If your sys/conf/kern.post.mk has r188288 (from 14:55:29 UTC) you are affected by this. I'll let you know once it is fixed. /bz -- Bjoern A. Zeeb The greatest risk is not taking one. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: make installkernel broken
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: Hi, I merged a change I had tested in my working but not a vanilla stable/7 tree. This broke make installkernel. I am currently investigating if it's easily fixable w/o side effects or I'll back it out in a bit. If your sys/conf/kern.post.mk has r188288 (from 14:55:29 UTC) you are affected by this. I'll let you know once it is fixed. With r188296 (21:07:58 UTC) things should be fine again. In case you hit the problem you can use make installkernel KMODOWN=root KMODGRP=wheel as a workaround. In case you experience any problems/side efffects from the fix, let me know immediately. Sorry for the breakage. /bz -- Bjoern A. Zeeb The greatest risk is not taking one. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Broken loader on 7.1-STABLE?
Mark Kirkwood wrote: I wrote: I am getting this too - update from RELENG_7 @12 Jan src to 20 Jan and I have: panic: free: guard1 fail @ 0x511d from /usr/src/sys/boot/i386/loader/../../common/module.c:959 Can't work out which disk we are booting from. Guessed BIOS device 0x not found by probes, defaulting to disk0 Forgot to say (cc'ing Luigi as he is collecting info): Asus a8vx with an AMD 64x2 3800+ dual core Also seeing this on a Supermicro P3TDER 2xPIII 1.26 GHz with RELENG_7 @08 Feb. In this case specifying /boot/loader.old got me booted ok (not sure why this *didn't* work with the Asus, maybe I need to try it again with the Feb sources). regards Mark ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FBSD 7.1 XEON Quad Core
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ivan Voras написа: | Todorov wrote: |> Hi list, |> |> what are the good make.conf options for the Xeon Quad core. |> |> CPUTYPE=core2 ?? | | It's probably better to use | | CFLAGS+=-O2 -mtune=native | |> Also is there any benefit to use AMD64 platform for this CPU? |> (Java Diablo + PGSQL 8.1 + Apache + Apache Tomcat) | | Yes, if you have (or plan to have) more than 3 GB of memory. | Thanks! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkmOiGMACgkQibJkIG65HMc7AACfZIDn4bv33cNyUia2mXcR3p/K ST4An18rJYrvaLJL91i0HsIhqMdqXHrO =gN9l -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
