From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Mar  7 17:02:54 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 758)
	id 78C6716A4D2; Mon,  7 Mar 2005 17:02:54 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 17:02:54 +0000
From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org>
To: Denis Shaposhnikov <dsh@vlink.ru>
Message-ID: <20050307170254.GK22873@hub.freebsd.org>
References: <87is46kzk1.fsf@neva.vlink.ru>
	<41C26F23F7DF023CB3DF35C5@cc-171.int.t-online.fr>
	<87sm3ajj8s.fsf@neva.vlink.ru> <20050305151903.GC26240@hub.freebsd.org>
	<87r7it18fh.fsf@neva.vlink.ru>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87r7it18fh.fsf@neva.vlink.ru>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.ORG>
cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
cc: Mathieu Arnold <mat@mat.cc>
Subject: Re: unionfs 5.4
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 17:02:54 -0000

On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 11:32:18AM +0300, Denis Shaposhnikov wrote:
> >>>>> "Kris" == Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.ORG> writes:
> 
>  Kris> But it works, and doesn't panic the system.  unionfs is
>  Kris> well-documented to be broken, and this is unlikely to change in
>  Kris> the near future.
> 
> That's a recent regression, unionfs works fine on
> 
> FreeBSD sagitta.internal.vlink.ru 6.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 6.0-CURRENT #1: Wed Dec  1 17:39:09 MSK 2004 dsh@rigel.internal.vlink.ru:/var/FreeBSD/obj/var/FreeBSD/src/sys/SAGITTA i386
> 
> And if unionfs panic the system on 5.4 too, I think it can't be STABLE
> at all.
> 
> BTW, from man mount_nullfs:
> 
> BUGS
>      THIS FILE SYSTEM TYPE IS NOT YET FULLY SUPPORTED (READ: IT DOESN'T WORK)
>      AND USING IT MAY, IN FACT, DESTROY DATA ON YOUR SYSTEM.  USE AT
>      YOUR OWN RISK.  BEWARE OF DOG.  SLIPPERY WHEN WET.
> 
> So you can't suggest to use nullfs instead of unionfs, because "is
> well-documented to be broken".

That comment seems to be out of date.  I'm not aware of any existing
bugs in nullfs in 5.x and 6.x.

Kris

--
In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate.
    -- Charles Forsythe <forsythe@alum.mit.edu>