Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 17:02:54 +0000 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> To: Denis Shaposhnikov <dsh@vlink.ru> Cc: Mathieu Arnold <mat@mat.cc> Subject: Re: unionfs 5.4 Message-ID: <20050307170254.GK22873@hub.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <87r7it18fh.fsf@neva.vlink.ru> References: <87is46kzk1.fsf@neva.vlink.ru> <41C26F23F7DF023CB3DF35C5@cc-171.int.t-online.fr> <87sm3ajj8s.fsf@neva.vlink.ru> <20050305151903.GC26240@hub.freebsd.org> <87r7it18fh.fsf@neva.vlink.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 11:32:18AM +0300, Denis Shaposhnikov wrote:
> >>>>> "Kris" == Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.ORG> writes:
>
> Kris> But it works, and doesn't panic the system. unionfs is
> Kris> well-documented to be broken, and this is unlikely to change in
> Kris> the near future.
>
> That's a recent regression, unionfs works fine on
>
> FreeBSD sagitta.internal.vlink.ru 6.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 6.0-CURRENT #1: Wed Dec 1 17:39:09 MSK 2004 dsh@rigel.internal.vlink.ru:/var/FreeBSD/obj/var/FreeBSD/src/sys/SAGITTA i386
>
> And if unionfs panic the system on 5.4 too, I think it can't be STABLE
> at all.
>
> BTW, from man mount_nullfs:
>
> BUGS
> THIS FILE SYSTEM TYPE IS NOT YET FULLY SUPPORTED (READ: IT DOESN'T WORK)
> AND USING IT MAY, IN FACT, DESTROY DATA ON YOUR SYSTEM. USE AT
> YOUR OWN RISK. BEWARE OF DOG. SLIPPERY WHEN WET.
>
> So you can't suggest to use nullfs instead of unionfs, because "is
> well-documented to be broken".
That comment seems to be out of date. I'm not aware of any existing
bugs in nullfs in 5.x and 6.x.
Kris
--
In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate.
-- Charles Forsythe <forsythe@alum.mit.edu>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050307170254.GK22873>