From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Jun  7 11:58:57 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F31FF910
 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Sat,  7 Jun 2014 11:58:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (si-002-i152.relay.mailchannels.net
 [108.178.49.164])
 (using TLSv1.1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A20A278B
 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Sat,  7 Jun 2014 11:58:56 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: _forwarded-from|107.201.34.133
Received: from mail-24.name-services.com (unknown [10.218.133.212])
 by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 6EC1112127A;
 Sat,  7 Jun 2014 11:51:52 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: _forwarded-from|107.201.34.133
Received: from mail-24.name-services.com (mail-24.name-services.com
 [10.244.170.26]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA)
 by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.2.3); Sat, 07 Jun 2014 11:51:52 GMT
X-MC-Relay: Forwarding
X-MailChannels-SenderId: _forwarded-from|107.201.34.133
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: demandmedia
Received: from [10.0.10.1] (107-201-34-133.lightspeed.bcvloh.sbcglobal.net
 [107.201.34.133]) by mail-24.name-services.com with SMTP; 
 Sat, 7 Jun 2014 04:51:46 -0700
Message-ID: <5392FCD1.3040806@a1poweruser.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2014 07:51:45 -0400
From: Fbsd8 <fbsd8@a1poweruser.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andrew Berg <aberg010@my.hennepintech.edu>
Subject: Re: Stability of unionfs - general recommendation?
References: <20140606103523.Horde.M-arxGpaecCk8BW2FZ_pXQ7@d2ux.org>
 <5392DB73.1020403@my.hennepintech.edu>
In-Reply-To: <5392DB73.1020403@my.hennepintech.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-questions>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2014 11:58:58 -0000

Andrew Berg wrote:
> On 2014.06.06 03:35, Matthias Petermann wrote:
>> My internet research yielded some questionable results on the stability of
>> unionfs. I understood there was an "old" implementation and a "newer" one
>> introduced in FreeBSD 6.3[1].
> I asked about this on the doc mailing list (because of the the way the man page
> is worded) and was told the new unionfs implementation deserves the big scary
> warning in the man page about as much as the old one. There have also been some
> recent discussions on IRC with the same general feeling, so I wouldn't trust it.
> 

General recommendation is to use nullfs and not unionfs for reasons you 
all ready found. port sysutils/jail-primer explains it nicely and has 
scripts you can use.

     http://jail-primer.sourceforge.net/