From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 16 01:40:18 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 5AE4016A4CE for ; Fri, 16 Jul 2004 01:40:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from hobbiton.shire.net (hobbiton.shire.net [206.71.64.250]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24C9943D2D for ; Fri, 16 Jul 2004 01:40:18 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from chad@shire.net) Received: from [67.161.247.57] (helo=[192.168.99.66]) by hobbiton.shire.net with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.10) id 1BlHhx-0000pM-00 for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:40:17 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v618) In-Reply-To: References: Message-Id: <1525E347-D6C9-11D8-BE2C-003065A70D30@shire.net> From: "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC" Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:40:13 -0600 To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on hobbiton.shire.net X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_01 autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Level: Subject: Thanks! 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: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 01:40:18 -0000 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