From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 13 18:54:20 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75B5916A4CE for ; Sun, 13 Mar 2005 18:54:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.ciam.ru (mail.ciam.ru [213.147.57.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD1A743D55 for ; Sun, 13 Mar 2005 18:54:19 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sem@FreeBSD.org) Received: from ppp83-237-181-199.pppoe.mtu-net.ru ([83.237.181.199] helo=[192.168.0.2]) by mail.ciam.ru with esmtpa (Exim 4.x) id 1DAYEE-000GfU-DG; Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:54:18 +0300 Message-ID: <42348C64.1090104@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:54:28 +0300 From: Sergey Matveychuk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041217 X-Accept-Language: ru, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Eriksson References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: unionfs 5.4 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 18:54:20 -0000 Daniel Eriksson wrote: > Sergey Matveychuk wrote: > > >>just ffs: 1:47 min >>nullfs: 1:43 min (oops!:) >>nullfs in jail: 12:12 min > > > I've got ~350 nullfs mounts on one of my servers, and I've never noticed it > being slower than plain ffs. I'm not using it in a jail however, maybe > that's why I've never experienced any slowdown with nullfs. The same with my tests. Have you noticed? -- Sem.