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: [email protected] ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- [email protected] *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
