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

Back to FreeBSD – Part 2 – Jails

hypha.pub

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 33 posts

Re: Back to FreeBSD – Part 2 – Jails

#3

Post by assimpleaspossi »

evanjrowley wrote: post #2

I would like to explore the interoperability/compatibility limits of LXC and OCI support in FreeBSD 15. Both with FreeBSD as an OCI container and Linux OCI containers within FreeBSD.

I would like to explore the interoperability/compatibility limits of Jails support in Linux.

Re: Back to FreeBSD – Part 2 – Jails

#5

Post by assimpleaspossi »

davidcollantes wrote: post #4

The main drawback I saw on jails is that they are FreeBSD. The owner doesn’t mention, and I have not researched it, but can you run any Linux distribution in a FreeBSD jail?

I believe you are asking about bhyve for running Linux on FreeBSD. Jails are for software isolation.

Re: Back to FreeBSD – Part 2 – Jails

#6

Post by dgl »

davidcollantes wrote: post #4

The main drawback I saw on jails is that they are FreeBSD. The owner doesn’t mention, and I have not researched it, but can you run any Linux distribution in a FreeBSD jail?

FreeBSD has supported Linux emulation for a long time (https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/handbook/linuxemu/). The emulation is at the syscall level but enough to run most apps.

Re: Back to FreeBSD – Part 2 – Jails

#8

Post by ggm »

davidcollantes wrote: post #4

The main drawback I saw on jails is that they are FreeBSD. The owner doesn’t mention, and I have not researched it, but can you run any Linux distribution in a FreeBSD jail?

There is a significant investment in a linux compatible system call layer, and a linux compatible runtime link library suite.

It isn't a complete answer, but the position as I understand it (haven't had to care for a long time) is that a LOT of linux binaries can work.

Re: Back to FreeBSD – Part 2 – Jails

#9

Post by ggm »

I think they understate the importance of accepting OCI and Dockerfile semantics as a path to an external "run one of these" and having it actually emerge as a jail based outcome.

I get saying "we don't need these additional layers/abstractions" but what it ignores is me saying "I want to run this code, and what I have is a suite of Docker based behaviour and I want a low friction path to use that Docker compose method, to get where I want"

They also haven't yet addressed how things re-scale sideways. Pods, and scaling is why people wind up behind traefik or caddy, fronting a service. It's not because the service lies in RFC1918 (how I wish they had written kubernetes to V6 native) it's because the service is being delivered by multiple discrete runtime states "inside" and scales horizontally.

Re: Back to FreeBSD – Part 2 – Jails

#10

Post by lstodd »

ggm wrote: post #9

I think they understate the importance of accepting OCI and Dockerfile semantics as a path to an external "run one of these" and having it actually emerge as a jail based outcome. I get saying "we don't need these additional layers/abstractions" but what it ignores is me saying "I want to run this code, and what I have is a suite of Docker based behaviour and I want a low friction path to use that Docker compose meth…

It's a different operating system. You can't point at a dockerfile, say "port this please from linux-such-and-such to FreeBSD" and expect it to work every time. There are nuances even with linux-compat.

Contrary to popular belief load-balance/scaleout is orthogonal to containers (and k8s is only one of the ways to go about it), so obviously it's not discussed in an article about containers.

Post reply on HN