Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 09:58:19 +0100 From: Mathieu Arnold <mat@mat.cc> To: Denis Shaposhnikov <dsh@neva.vlink.ru> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: unionfs 5.4 Message-ID: <DDE9BD25F957493B50EE49C5@cc-171.int.t-online.fr> In-Reply-To: <874qfpupk5.fsf@neva.vlink.ru> References: <87is46kzk1.fsf@neva.vlink.ru> <41C26F23F7DF023CB3DF35C5@cc-171.int.t-online.fr> <20050305151903.GC26240@hub.freebsd.org> <87mzth18e2.fsf@neva.vlink.ru> <1DE178D508C1D70D1B5F9E87@cc-171.int.t-online.fr> <874qfpupk5.fsf@neva.vlink.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
+-le 06/03/2005 11:49 +0300, Denis Shaposhnikov =E9crivait : |>>>>> "Mathieu" =3D=3D Mathieu Arnold <mat@mat.cc> writes: |=20 | Mathieu> Well, nullfs and unionfs have the same BUGS section :-) | Mathieu> OTOH, nullfs has never panic'ed me, whereas unionfs has. | Possible, but I can't use it for jail's system because it very slow. I find that pretty strange, I'll be thinking that it should be at least as fast, if not faster, I'll make some tests this week. --=20 Mathieu Arnold
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?DDE9BD25F957493B50EE49C5>