Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 11:33:09 +0300 From: Denis Shaposhnikov <dsh@neva.vlink.ru> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Mathieu Arnold <mat@mat.cc> Subject: Re: unionfs 5.4 Message-ID: <87mzth18e2.fsf@neva.vlink.ru> In-Reply-To: <20050305151903.GC26240@hub.freebsd.org> (Kris Kennaway's message of "Sat, 5 Mar 2005 15:19:03 %2B0000") References: <87is46kzk1.fsf@neva.vlink.ru> <41C26F23F7DF023CB3DF35C5@cc-171.int.t-online.fr> <87sm3ajj8s.fsf@neva.vlink.ru> <20050305151903.GC26240@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>> "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".
--
DSS5-RIPE DSS-RIPN 2:550/5068@fidonet 2:550/5069@fidonet
mailto:dsh@vlink.ru http://neva.vlink.ru/~dsh/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?87mzth18e2.fsf>