Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 15:19:03 +0000 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> To: Denis Shaposhnikov <dsh@neva.vlink.ru> Cc: Mathieu Arnold <mat@mat.cc> Subject: Re: unionfs 5.4 Message-ID: <20050305151903.GC26240@hub.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <87sm3ajj8s.fsf@neva.vlink.ru> References: <87is46kzk1.fsf@neva.vlink.ru> <41C26F23F7DF023CB3DF35C5@cc-171.int.t-online.fr> <87sm3ajj8s.fsf@neva.vlink.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 04:49:07PM +0300, Denis Shaposhnikov wrote: > >>>>> "Mathieu" == Mathieu Arnold <mat@mat.cc> writes: > > Mathieu> I'm not answering to your question, but what's the need of a > Mathieu> ro unionfs, a ro nullfs would do the same, no ? > > It seems that nullfs much slower. But it works, and doesn't panic the system. unionfs is well-documented to be broken, and this is unlikely to change in the near future. Kris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050305151903.GC26240>