On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 12:06:39PM -0700, Brandon Fosdick wrote:
> Ideally I would like a daemon like socat that can connect/merge two
> sockets into one, effectively creating a direct connection and
> eliminating a copy. But AFAICT that isn't possible with the current
> interface.
It depends how
Ok, here's what I've decided. But first, thanks for all of the help.
Currently the MySQL databases are on a seperate RAID volume, and I'd like to
keep it that way for performance purposes. In general I want to avoid putting
anything on the raid that isn't a database. I don't want the raid volme
Robert Watson wrote:
> Last I checked, MySQL used solely TCP and UNIX domain sockets for
> communication, and not System V IPC. I believe PostgreSQL, however,
> used System V IPC.
For some reason I was thinking that domain sockets and System V IPC were the
same thing. Now I know better. Thanks.
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005, Brandon Fosdick wrote:
Robert Watson wrote:
There are several ways you can do it, but they generally fall into two
classes of activies:
(1) Modifying the name space exclusion assumption for jails, so that the
file system name spaces overlap. One way to do this is with
Robert Watson wrote:
> There are several ways you can do it, but they generally fall into two
> classes of activies:
>
> (1) Modifying the name space exclusion assumption for jails, so that the
> file system name spaces overlap. One way to do this is with nullfs.
>
> (2) Having a daemon or t
[Sorry, this is a late reply, but might be helpful.]
Daniel Gerzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Brandon,
> Thursday, September 15, 2005, 5:17:57 AM, you wrote:
> > [...]
> > nullfs looks interesting. I was thinking about sharing files
> > between jails using NFS, but it looks like nullfs
On 14/09/2005, at 4:59 PM, Uwe Doering wrote:
So in case of MySQL you would have to use TCP sockets to communicate
between jails. This socket type typically consumes more CPU because
of TCP's protocol overhead. However, whether you would actually
notice any difference in speed basically de
Brandon Fosdick wrote:
Robert Watson wrote:
> (1) Modifying the name space exclusion assumption for jails, so that the
file system name spaces overlap. One way to do this is with nullfs.
nullfs looks interesting. I was thinking about sharing files between jails
using NFS, but it looks l
Hello Brandon,
Thursday, September 15, 2005, 5:17:57 AM, you wrote:
> Robert Watson wrote:
>> (1) Modifying the name space exclusion assumption for jails, so that the
>> file system name spaces overlap. One way to do this is with nullfs.
> nullfs looks interesting. I was thinking about sha
Robert Watson wrote:
> (1) Modifying the name space exclusion assumption for jails, so that the
> file system name spaces overlap. One way to do this is with nullfs.
nullfs looks interesting. I was thinking about sharing files between jails
using NFS, but it looks like nullfs would do the t
Robert Watson wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
On Sep 13, 2005, at 11:59 PM, Uwe Doering wrote:
Now, for security reasons jails normally are confined in separate
filesystems, or at least in separate parts of a common one. So in
case of MySQL you would have to use TCP soc
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
On Sep 13, 2005, at 11:59 PM, Uwe Doering wrote:
Now, for security reasons jails normally are confined in separate
filesystems, or at least in separate parts of a common one. So in case
of MySQL you would have to use TCP sockets to communicate be
On Sep 13, 2005, at 11:59 PM, Uwe Doering wrote:
Now, for security reasons jails normally are confined in separate
filesystems, or at least in separate parts of a common one. So in
case of MySQL you would have to use TCP sockets to communicate
between jails. This socket type typically co
Brandon Fosdick wrote:
I have a 5.4-S box running apache2 that's serving data from mysql running on
the same box. I'm thinking about putting both in seperate jails, partly for
security and partly for practice. Would this impact network performance between
the two? Currently the mysql connectio
I have a 5.4-S box running apache2 that's serving data from mysql running on
the same box. I'm thinking about putting both in seperate jails, partly for
security and partly for practice. Would this impact network performance between
the two? Currently the mysql connection is using localhost whic
15 matches
Mail list logo
