From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 15 22:57:11 2004 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 CD66D16A4CE for ; Thu, 15 Jul 2004 22:57:11 +0000 (GMT) Received: from av5-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (av5-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net [81.228.10.112]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9575843D3F for ; Thu, 15 Jul 2004 22:57:11 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from daniel_k_eriksson@telia.com) Received: by av5-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id F161437F15; Fri, 16 Jul 2004 00:57:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp2-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (smtp2-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net [81.228.10.182]) by av5-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E427B37E42; Fri, 16 Jul 2004 00:57:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gadget (h130n1fls11o822.telia.com [213.64.66.130]) by smtp2-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C512737E43; Fri, 16 Jul 2004 00:57:10 +0200 (CEST) From: "Daniel Eriksson" To: "'Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC'" , Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 00:57:04 +0200 Organization: Home Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 Importance: Normal Subject: RE: unionfs on CURRENT for read only OK? 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: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 22:57:12 -0000 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