Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:15:43 -0400 (AST) From: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Andy Hilker <ah@crypta.net> Subject: Re: the current status of nullfs, unionfs Message-ID: <20050310161506.Y92893@ganymede.hub.org> In-Reply-To: <20050310170715.GD34206@hub.freebsd.org> References: <200503091838.06322.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> <87ll8vn32j.fsf@neva.vlink.ru> <20050310123852.F92893@ganymede.hub.org> <20050310170715.GD34206@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Kris Kennaway wrote: > 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. Sorry, jump'd into the thread late, and ended up getting caught up in the archives *after* sending ... I haven't risked 5.x for production servers yet because of its issues :( ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050310161506.Y92893>