Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CBSD – FreeBSD Jail Management Tools

bsdstore.ru

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 42 posts

Re: CBSD – FreeBSD Jail Management Tools

#11

Post by lelf »

tinco wrote: post #6

dallagi: your comments are marked as dead. Judging from your comments there's no real reason for it, so I think a bot did it because you commented on a troll submission. for the rest of HN: Isn't one of Dockers killer features the layered file system? Using rsync for making new jails seems like it's going to be real slow for reprovisioning. What kind of things to people use FreeBSD for? I wonder if they're really roo…

> Isn't one of Dockers killer features the layered file system?

Use can mount anything you like to any mount point in jails. (Even without ZFS, with ZFS it's a different story.) I don't know about this CBSD, but ejail and qjail (similar tools) do that for you — they mount some “base” system in jail. Then you mount what you want, pkg install what want etc

> I wonder if they're really rooting for a docker coming to their environment.

WHAT? No, it's with docker GNU/Linux is finally going to have something like jails, which FreeBSD have has for decades.

Re: CBSD – FreeBSD Jail Management Tools

#12

Post by nzp »

tachion wrote: post #9
nzp wrote: post #8

This project seems great, but I feel there's something wrong with the submitted article title, it sounds weird (plus, there's no mention of Docker on the linked page). Sure, you can draw parallels between Docker and what FreeBSD jails and tools built on top do, but it would be fairer to say Docker is a Linux based alternative to jails, and not as powerful (as far as I understand Linux kernel infrastructure that Docke…

The thing is that it is Docker that 'seems' to be leading the container movement right now, being a mainstream tool, even though Jails were available earlier and as of now seem to be more powerful than LXC. Also, Jails are not only security feature, but can be as good deployment feature, as Docker, if not better - it all depends what you want to do with them, and you can do a lot. I called CBSD an alternative to Dock…

Well, I had a hunch it was for this reason. I usually get grumpy when an arguably superior solution is presented as an 'alternative' to something that's just more popular because it's easier that way for people to grok what it's all about. But on the other hand, I've never been good at marketing, so who am I to complain. :)

Re: CBSD – FreeBSD Jail Management Tools

#13

Post by nzp »

tachion wrote: post #5
cordite wrote: post #3

The dependency list is amazingly minimal! > rsync,sudo,libssh2,sqlite3 Now, I don't use FreeBSD, but that seems like a dream when it comes to provisioning.

That's possible because most of the technology behind CBSD is a intergated part of FreeBSD system for quite some time now: Jails have been there for ages, ZFS support dates back to 7.x with becoming default in 10.0-RELEASE. Sudo is not in default install, but sqlite should be there, as it is being used in the system (if I am correct, at least by pkg, the new package manager).

> but sqlite should be there, as it is being used in the system (if I am correct, at least by pkg, the new package manager).

AFAIK, no. PKGNG is intentionally not part of base, it's meant to always remain in ports. The reason is that it allows pkg developers to iterate quickly (and this ties nicely into the recent ports infrastructure overhaul efforts). Once something is part of base and goes into a RELEASE it pretty much has to stay frozen apart for security fixes, and this was deemed not flexible enough for pkg. The only thing in base is a shim pkg which on first invocation installs the real thing from ports (and, I think, later just routes everything to it, unless you remove it or change PATH). So nothing in base uses sqlite and it's in ports/packages.

Re: CBSD – FreeBSD Jail Management Tools

#15

Post by Aqueous »

lelf wrote: post #11
tinco wrote: post #6

dallagi: your comments are marked as dead. Judging from your comments there's no real reason for it, so I think a bot did it because you commented on a troll submission. for the rest of HN: Isn't one of Dockers killer features the layered file system? Using rsync for making new jails seems like it's going to be real slow for reprovisioning. What kind of things to people use FreeBSD for? I wonder if they're really roo…

> Isn't one of Dockers killer features the layered file system? Use can mount anything you like to any mount point in jails. (Even without ZFS, with ZFS it's a different story.) I don't know about this CBSD, but ejail and qjail (similar tools) do that for you — they mount some “base” system in jail. Then you mount what you want, pkg install what want etc > I wonder if they're really rooting for a docker coming to the…

LXC is to Jail as Docker is to CBSD

Re: CBSD – FreeBSD Jail Management Tools

#16

Post by nzp »

tinco wrote: post #6

dallagi: your comments are marked as dead. Judging from your comments there's no real reason for it, so I think a bot did it because you commented on a troll submission. for the rest of HN: Isn't one of Dockers killer features the layered file system? Using rsync for making new jails seems like it's going to be real slow for reprovisioning. What kind of things to people use FreeBSD for? I wonder if they're really roo…

> What kind of things to people use FreeBSD for?

HN for start. And then there's (off the top of my head) Netflix, NetApp, Juniper, Sony, countless ISPs, DuckDuckGo...

Re: CBSD – FreeBSD Jail Management Tools

#18

Post by enduser »

nzp wrote: post #13
tachion wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's possible because most of the technology behind CBSD is a intergated part of FreeBSD system for quite some time now: Jails have been there for ages, ZFS support dates back to 7.x with becoming default in 10.0-RELEASE. Sudo is not in default install, but sqlite should be there, as it is being used in the system (if I am correct, at least by pkg, the new package manager).

> but sqlite should be there, as it is being used in the system (if I am correct, at least by pkg, the new package manager). AFAIK, no. PKGNG is intentionally not part of base, it's meant to always remain in ports. The reason is that it allows pkg developers to iterate quickly (and this ties nicely into the recent ports infrastructure overhaul efforts). Once something is part of base and goes into a RELEASE it pretty…

PKGNG is the default (integrated) package managers in 10.0-RELEASE.

Re: CBSD – FreeBSD Jail Management Tools

#19

Post by dotemacs »

nzp wrote: post #16
tinco wrote: post #6

dallagi: your comments are marked as dead. Judging from your comments there's no real reason for it, so I think a bot did it because you commented on a troll submission. for the rest of HN: Isn't one of Dockers killer features the layered file system? Using rsync for making new jails seems like it's going to be real slow for reprovisioning. What kind of things to people use FreeBSD for? I wonder if they're really roo…

> What kind of things to people use FreeBSD for? HN for start. And then there's (off the top of my head) Netflix, NetApp, Juniper, Sony, countless ISPs, DuckDuckGo...

It seems that HN have switched to a different OS, but used be on FreeBSD:

(scroll to "Hosting History")

http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=https%3A%2F%2Fne...

Re: CBSD – FreeBSD Jail Management Tools

#20

Post by nzp »

enduser wrote: post #18
nzp wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but sqlite should be there, as it is being used in the system (if I am correct, at least by pkg, the new package manager). AFAIK, no. PKGNG is intentionally not part of base, it's meant to always remain in ports. The reason is that it allows pkg developers to iterate quickly (and this ties nicely into the recent ports infrastructure overhaul efforts). Once something is part of base and goes into a RELEASE it pretty…

PKGNG is the default (integrated) package managers in 10.0-RELEASE.

It's the default alright, but that has nothing to do with it being in the base (yes, it's an exception to the rule). You can look it up on the freebsd-ports@, there were somewhat heated discussions concerning this and some other issues. Unless I've missed something, this decision hasn't changed.
Post reply on HN