Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:40:13 -0600
From:      "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC" <chad@shire.net>
To:        <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Thanks! Re: unionfs on CURRENT for read only OK?
Message-ID:  <1525E347-D6C9-11D8-BE2C-003065A70D30@shire.net>
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA0VcX9IoJqUaXPS8MjT1PdsKAAAAQAAAA8lpQYWhFtkeCIbqVLTKLbgEAAAAA@telia.com>
References:  <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA0VcX9IoJqUaXPS8MjT1PdsKAAAAQAAAA8lpQYWhFtkeCIbqVLTKLbgEAAAAA@telia.com>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help

On Jul 15, 2004, at 4:57 PM, Daniel Eriksson wrote:

> Chad Leigh wrote:
>
>> The man pages for unionfs basically say to avoid it as it has
>> problems.
>>    However, I was wondering about people's experience with it
>> for read
>> 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.

Thanks  to all who replied.  Yes, I was thinking of nullfs.  Sorry.  I 
will give it a try and I appreciate the responses from everyone.

Thanks
Chad



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1525E347-D6C9-11D8-BE2C-003065A70D30>