From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 7 09:29:27 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9062F2C7 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2014 09:29:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1lp0145.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.145]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.protection.outlook.com", Issuer "MSIT Machine Auth CA 2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 440662D6A for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2014 09:29:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from SN2PRD0310HT003.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.112.38) by SN2PR03MB061.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.175.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.959.15; Sat, 7 Jun 2014 09:29:23 +0000 Received: from [10.0.0.114] (98.240.141.71) by pod51008.outlook.com (10.255.112.38) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.459.0; Sat, 7 Jun 2014 09:29:23 +0000 Message-ID: <5392DB73.1020403@my.hennepintech.edu> Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2014 04:29:23 -0500 From: Andrew Berg User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Subject: Re: Stability of unionfs - general recommendation? References: <20140606103523.Horde.M-arxGpaecCk8BW2FZ_pXQ7@d2ux.org> In-Reply-To: <20140606103523.Horde.M-arxGpaecCk8BW2FZ_pXQ7@d2ux.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [98.240.141.71] X-Microsoft-Antispam: BL:0; ACTION:Default; RISK:Low; SCL:0; SPMLVL:NotSpam; PCL:0; RULEID: X-Forefront-PRVS: 0235CBE7D0 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(428001)(24454002)(199002)(189002)(50466002)(76482001)(74662001)(46102001)(74502001)(21056001)(76176999)(50986999)(87266999)(65816999)(77096999)(54356999)(101416001)(87936001)(23676002)(79102001)(102836001)(31966008)(4396001)(33656002)(64706001)(86362001)(85852003)(75432001)(47776003)(20776003)(83072002)(81542001)(88552001)(81342001)(83506001)(59896001)(99396002)(92566001)(65806001)(77982001)(80022001)(64126003)(65956001)(92726001)(83322001)(66066001); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:SN2PR03MB061; H:SN2PRD0310HT003.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:0; MX:1; LANG:en; Received-SPF: None (: my.HennepinTech.edu does not designate permitted sender hosts) Authentication-Results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=aberg010@my.HennepinTech.edu; X-OriginatorOrg: my.hennepintech.edu X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2014 09:29:27 -0000 On 2014.06.06 03:35, Matthias Petermann wrote: > My internet research yielded some questionable results on the stability of > unionfs. I understood there was an "old" implementation and a "newer" one > introduced in FreeBSD 6.3[1]. I asked about this on the doc mailing list (because of the the way the man page is worded) and was told the new unionfs implementation deserves the big scary warning in the man page about as much as the old one. There have also been some recent discussions on IRC with the same general feeling, so I wouldn't trust it.