Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:07:15 +0000 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> Cc: Andy Hilker <ah@crypta.net> Subject: Re: the current status of nullfs, unionfs Message-ID: <20050310170715.GD34206@hub.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20050310123852.F92893@ganymede.hub.org> References: <200503091838.06322.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> <20050310004919.GA34206@hub.freebsd.org> <87ll8vn32j.fsf@neva.vlink.ru> <20050310160852.GB1718@mail.crypta.net> <20050310123852.F92893@ganymede.hub.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:45:04PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Andy Hilker wrote: > > >Hi, > > > >You (Denis Shaposhnikov) wrote: > >>>>>>>"Kris" == Kris Kennaway <kris@freebsd.org> writes: > >> > >> Kris> nullfs seems to work fine, unionfs is very fragile and easily > >> Kris> exploded. > >> > >>nullfs is absolutely useless for jail's because TOO slow. > > > > > >What do you mean exactly, how do you benchmark this? > > That's okay, my experiences are that nullfs is too fragile and easily > exploded ... I was referring to 5.x and above. Kris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050310170715.GD34206>