Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 10:23:23 +0200 (CEST) From: Oliver Fromme <olli@lurza.secnetix.de> To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: nullfs in 4.10 Message-ID: <200406230823.i5N8NNrO060698@lurza.secnetix.de> In-Reply-To: <20040622164400.D845@ganymede.hub.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, Allan Fields wrote:
> > the wrong answer from a technical standpoint. Also placing code in the
> > corner won't fix it: even if it is made to work under 5, many want to
> > use it in 4 still. ;)
>
> Many *are* using it in 4 quite effectively ... those that tout it as being
> 'broken' all the time are those that are either trying to do something
> that is known to cause problems (ie. FIFOs) or those that look at the man
> page and 'quote scripture' :(
Or those that run user shells within jails. Users tend to
find out surpsisingly quickly how to panic machines.
I changed to using NFS loopback mounts within jails, and it
works perfectly fine. The NFS overhead is neglectible (it
almost seems like the NFS code takes some shotcuts when run
through localhost), it doesn't "feel" slower than direct
local disk mounts.
Best regards
Oliver
--
Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co KG, Oettingenstr. 2, 80538 München
Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author
and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way.
"To this day, many C programmers believe that 'strong typing'
just means pounding extra hard on the keyboard."
-- Peter van der Linden
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200406230823.i5N8NNrO060698>