Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 16 Jul 2004 00:57:04 +0200
From:      "Daniel Eriksson" <daniel_k_eriksson@telia.com>
To:        "'Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC'" <chad@shire.net>, <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
Subject:   RE: unionfs on CURRENT for read only OK?
Message-ID:  <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA0VcX9IoJqUaXPS8MjT1PdsKAAAAQAAAA8lpQYWhFtkeCIbqVLTKLbgEAAAAA@telia.com>
In-Reply-To: <CF1C2A90-D69F-11D8-9ED8-003065A70D30@shire.net>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
Chad Leigh wrote:

> The man pages for unionfs basically say to avoid it as it has=20
> problems.=20
>    However, I was wondering about people's experience with it=20
> for read=20
> only mounts.

The nullfs man page says mostly the same thing, and I'm using it =
extensively
on one of my servers (200+ rw mounts) without any problems (yet). I've =
been
running like this for 10 days now using an up-to-date 5-CURRENT. Writes =
are
done both to the underlying filesystem and through the nullfs mount, but
most of the access is read (10-to-1 ratio for read-vs-write probably).

And to make it even more interesting the underlying filesystems reside =
on a
mixture of "old" vinum arrays, ataraid arrays and single discs.

I do have some problems, but I had them even before I started using
mount_nullfs so they should not be related.

/Daniel Eriksson




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA0VcX9IoJqUaXPS8MjT1PdsKAAAAQAAAA8lpQYWhFtkeCIbqVLTKLbgEAAAAA>