none /secure/files/mail /secure/internal/smtp/postfix/server/var/spool/mail 
nullfs rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev 0 0

same for the other entry - forgot the fs type...


On October 9, 2003 05:00 pm, Kenny Freeman wrote:
> I'm not sure about union fs, never had a real use for it yet.... I have a
> similair setup as you. I have about 4 jails running so far (~8 more to go).
> I've written a fairly large bash scipt to build the jails + configure them
> automagically too. I've got a 120GB drive in that system, so for me I don't
> really have a problem with space. What I use nullfs for is sharing data
> between jails, for example:
> /secure/files/mail <- mail spools
> would be shared using: (/etc/crontab entries)
> none /secure/files/mail /secure/internal/smtp/postfix/server/var/spool/mail
> rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev 0 0
> none /secure/files/mail /secure/internal/imap/courier/server/var/spool/mail
> rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev 0 0
> haven't really got these up and running yet (ie. I don't really know if
> postfix + courier both work inside a jail). ATM I'm stuck on my file server
> jail, which may never work. I do have djbdns cache+server running. Anyway,
> nullfs is great for "remounting" parts of the file system. I would not use
> that to remount parts of the file system that have executables on them in
> rw mode, only ro. You could mount the base / fs using nullfs onto the jail
> / filesystem but this would be tricky because you would have to deal with
> things like syslogd base + syslogd(s) jail both writing to /var/log/. You
> could mount each directory using nullfs (/bin /sbin, etc) onto the jails
> and I think this would work. I would note the warnings in the man pages
> about this stuff being experimental tho. You could save space by using the
> same executables and libs while having seperate /var/ /etc/ etc dirs in the
> jail but it would be a bit of work to figure out what dirs to mount_nullfs
> and what dirs to have as real dirs. Oh, btw, I know about as much about
> fs's as you do too, so your milage may vary...
> -Kenny
> On August 3, 2003 04:09 pm, Lewis Thompson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >   I currently have a bunch of jails running on my FreeBSD box.  I've
> > done this by making installworld a number of times, each time with a
> > different DESTDIR (say /jail1, /jail2, /jail3).  Clearly this is using a
> > significant amount of space on the machine.
> >
> >   I've been reading about unionfs and nullfs (well, more skim reading
> > really; I'm not FS guru, which is why I'm asking here) and one of these
> > sounds like it could be the idea solution.  At first glance I'd say that
> > unionfs would be the way to go.
> >
> >   My question about unionfs:  if I use this as a base dir for all of my
> > jails and decide to ``upgrade'' the base system will it actually work?
> > I mean, when I start installing stuff through the ports does it ever
> > modify the base system in any way?  If it does, then surely a base
> > system upgrade will appear to leave the old ports-created files (because
> > the upper layer changes override the lower unionfs fs).
> >
> >   Secondly, I don't really understand nullfs.  Would this be a
> > ``better'' solution than using unionfs?  Maybe it isn't even a solution,
> > but if it is, a pointer to some useful articles would be great (aside
> > man mount_nullfs; I've read that but don't fully understand).
> >
> >   Thanks very much!
> >
> > -lewiz.

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: signature

Reply via email to