Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2014 22:26:45 +0200 From: Matthias Petermann <matthias@petermann-it.de> To: Fbsd8 <fbsd8@a1poweruser.com> Cc: Andrew Berg <aberg010@my.hennepintech.edu>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Stability of unionfs - general recommendation? Message-ID: <20140607222645.df7faa656937bde270952a08@petermann-it.de> In-Reply-To: <5392FCD1.3040806@a1poweruser.com> References: <20140606103523.Horde.M-arxGpaecCk8BW2FZ_pXQ7@d2ux.org> <5392DB73.1020403@my.hennepintech.edu> <5392FCD1.3040806@a1poweruser.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 07 Jun 2014 07:51:45 -0400 Fbsd8 <fbsd8@a1poweruser.com> wrote: > 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/ > > Thank you both for the advice and recommendation. The Jail primer was useful for me. Kind regards, Matthias -- Matthias Petermann <matthias@petermann-it.de> | www.petermann-it.de GnuPG: 0x5C3E6D75 | 5930 86EF 7965 2BBA 6572 C3D7 7B1D A3C3 5C3E 6D75
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140607222645.df7faa656937bde270952a08>