Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 01:39:26 +0000 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> To: Tim Robbins <tjr@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Q's about IBM TSM (was Re: HEADSUP: ibcs2 and svr4 compat headedfor history) Message-ID: <20040630013926.GA97839@hub.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20040629103724.GA25753@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> References: <20040628212811.W658@korben.in.tern> <20040628215640.C14935C29@techpc04.okladot.state.ok.us> <20040629103724.GA25753@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 08:37:24PM +1000, Tim Robbins wrote: > On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 04:56:40PM -0500, Paul Seniura wrote: > > > I google'd and didn't like what I saw. Stuff about > > nullfs not being too kosher on -Current. :( > > There seems to be a lot of superstition surrounding nullfs, but I only > know of one outstanding reproducible problem with it in -current (sockets > and fifos aren't handled correctly and cause panics.) If you can spare the > time to experiment, I suggest trying it, then filing a PR if you encounter > any problems. There's no guarantee that these problems will be addressed > right away, but it will give others more solid information than rumours > to go by when deciding whether or not to use nullfs, and well-documented > problems are much more likely to get fixed. FYI, I use read-only nullfs extensively for package builds (with a static lower layer, and no sockets or fifos in either layer). I haven't had any problems with it. Kris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040630013926.GA97839>