Re: Have I got this VIMAGE setup correct?

< said: >> 2) Stopping jails with virtual network stacks generates warnings from >> UMA about memory being leaked. > I'm given to understand that's Known, and presumably Not Quite Trivial > To Fix. Since I'm not starting/stopping jails repeatedly as a normal > runtime thing, I'm ignoring it.

Re: Have I got this VIMAGE setup correct?

Am 04.01.2016 um 02:33 schrieb Garrett Wollman : > > For now, I think I'll just use exec.prestart to manually configure a > MAC address. It would be nice if the LAA MAC addresses we generated > were both random on initial creation (to better avoid duplicates) and > stable

Re: Have I got this VIMAGE setup correct?

On 23/12/2015 1:05 AM, Garrett Wollman wrote: The consensus when I asked seemed to be that VIMAGE+jail was the right combination to give every container its own private loopback interface, so I tried to build that. I noticed a few things: 1) The kernel prints out a warning message at boot time

Re: Have I got this VIMAGE setup correct?

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 12:05:07PM -0500 I heard the voice of Garrett Wollman, and lo! it spake thus: > > The consensus when I asked seemed to be that VIMAGE+jail was the > right combination to give every container its own private loopback > interface, so I tried to build that. I noticed a few

Re: Have I got this VIMAGE setup correct?

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Garrett Wollman wrote: > Any patches I should pull up to make this setup more > reliable before I roll it out in production? > > If you loook at CURRENT, bz@ has committed a few VIMAGE related fixes this week which you might want to look

Have I got this VIMAGE setup correct?

The consensus when I asked seemed to be that VIMAGE+jail was the right combination to give every container its own private loopback interface, so I tried to build that. I noticed a few things: 1) The kernel prints out a warning message at boot time that VIMAGE is "highly experimental". Should I