Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 22:10:40 +0300 (MSK) From: Maxim Konovalov <maxim@macomnet.ru> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@freebsd.org> Cc: Mathieu Arnold <mat@mat.cc> Subject: Re: unionfs 5.4 Message-ID: <20050305220919.N70060@mp2.macomnet.net> In-Reply-To: <20050305151903.GC26240@hub.freebsd.org> References: <87is46kzk1.fsf@neva.vlink.ru> <41C26F23F7DF023CB3DF35C5@cc-171.int.t-online.fr> <20050305151903.GC26240@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 5 Mar 2005, 15:19-0000, Kris Kennaway wrote: > 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. As kern/77251 says this is a recent regression. -- Maxim Konovalov
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050305220919.N70060>