[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ezjail] ZFS? [WAS] Re: Problem with "archive" command in 3.0b



Philipp Wuensche wrote:
> 
> Conclusion:
> 
> Using ZFS in ezjail includes two different decisions to make: a) the
> filesystem for the jails itself and b) managing basejail etc. in ZFS or
> not.
> 
> So I guess it needs a "ezjail_basejail_ZFS" option too and the admin has
> to make the decision if he wants ZFS to manage basejail/newjail with ZFS
> features or not.
> After that taking care of both scenarios and their interactions should
> be manageble. This way it would be an all or nothing approach regarding
> the base- and newjail stuff but allowing the user to use ZFS based jails
> or not by implementing a new jail type.

There is a new ezjail-admin version at
http://outpost.h3q.com/patches/ZFS-ezjail/ezjail-zfs/ezjail-admin in
which I implemented just that!

I introduced a new jail-image type "zfs", so you can create a ZFS jail
like that:

ezjail-admin create -c zfs foobar 127.0.0.1

If you have created your ezjail setup with ezjail_use_zfs="YES" in
ezjail.conf, it will use zfs commands to create, delete and rename the
jail. If not, a ZFS filesystem is created and delete with zfs but the
freebsd-userland is copied via dump&restore.

Oh and I make use of the mountpoint property instead of creating
softlinks in the ezjail rootdir.

Upgrading between ezjail_use_zfs="YES" and "NO" is not possible by ezjail.

> Btw., my guess is, if someone manages basejail in ZFS he already uses
> ZFS and there is no advantage of _not_ managing the jails in ZFS too. So
> the second scenario is very unlikely and maybe I only need to take care
> of the first!?

I took care of both scenarios. ;-)

As Dirk is on vacation right now, maybe I can add the basic ZFS features
to the CVS next week.

greetings,
cryx