From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 21 01:45:53 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BFD716A4CE for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 01:45:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from techno.sub.ru (webmail.sub.ru [213.247.139.22]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3826F43FBD for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 01:45:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tarkhil@over.ru) Received: (qmail 68224 invoked by uid 0); 21 Nov 2003 09:45:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tarkhil.over.ru) (213.148.23.65) by webmail.sub.ru with SMTP; 21 Nov 2003 09:45:52 -0000 Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:45:49 +0300 From: Alex Povolotsky To: Erez Zadok Message-Id: <20031121124549.44895c7c.tarkhil@over.ru> In-Reply-To: <200311210201.hAL21VDZ015268@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> References: <20031121005706.GA67377@wombat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> <200311210201.hAL21VDZ015268@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.6claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.6.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: "Reverse union" mount possible? X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:45:53 -0000 On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 21:01:31 -0500 Erez Zadok wrote: EZ> > > Right now, I'm readonly mount_null'ing /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, EZ> > > /usr/sbin,/usr/lib, /usr/include, /usr/libexec, /usr/share. With EZ> > > a dozen jails, there are too many mounts to my liking, and about EZ> > > twice a week I experience panic. Probabily it's nullfs-related. EZ> > EZ> > Nullfs is known to be buggy in -stable. In particular, it seems to EZ> > deadlock under load / when vnodes start getting recycled. EZ> EZ> My fist stackable templates were ported to fbsd 4.x and 5.0 not too EZ> long ago. We ran extensive tests to ensure that the code is stable. EZ> While it's EZ> possible we missed stuff, it might help if someone checked what is EZ> different about my "wrapfs" vs. Nullfs. We may have fixed bugs in EZ> wrapfs not realizing that they originally came from the base Nullfs EZ> we started with. Sounds cool. Where can I get the source? BTW, I've heard that nullfs/unionfs doesn't allow code sharing. Does wrapfs do it? -- Alex.