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: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA0VcX9IoJqUaXPS8MjT1PdsKAAAAQAAAA8lpQYWhFtkeCIbqVLTKLbgEAAAAA>