Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:41:59 +0300 (MSK) From: Dmitry Morozovsky <marck@rinet.ru> To: James Raftery <james@kerna.ie> Subject: Re: jails update Message-ID: <20030306143029.U43664@woozle.rinet.ru> In-Reply-To: <20030306111414.GB95910@bender.kerna.ie> References: <m3znoa8543.fsf@teg.local> <20030305135652.GA83413@ei.bzerk.org> <m3u1ehuc9w.fsf@teg.local> <020c01c2e340$ee8f5c60$19fd2fd8@westbend.net> <m31y1l1xcz.fsf@teg.local> <20030306140038.M43664@woozle.rinet.ru> <20030306111414.GB95910@bender.kerna.ie>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, James Raftery wrote: JR> > We avoid this (and the whole need to update multiple jails) by JR> > installing to dedicated partition and the do multiple read-only null JR> > mounts, so each jail has perfectly equal read-only /usr (with symlinks JR> > outside to /home, /local, etc) JR> JR> The rather blunt warning in the BUGS sections of the mount_null man JR> page[0] had put me off using it. How stable is nullfs these days? JR> JR> JR> [0] ``... NOT YET FULLY SUPPORTED (READ: IT DOESN'T WORK) ...'' I've heard about deadlocks and other bad things with read-write nullfs-es; however, read-only null mounts works flawlessly (at least for us, and we do not stress our system like scrappy@hub.org ;-))) Sincerely, D.Marck [DM5020, DM268-RIPE, DM3-RIPN] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- marck@rinet.ru *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030306143029.U43664>