From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 23 08:23:27 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6225D16A4CE for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 08:23:27 +0000 (GMT) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (lurza.secnetix.de [83.120.8.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0F2A43D1D for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 08:23:26 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (fqpszc@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5N8NNuS060699 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 10:23:24 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from oliver.fromme@secnetix.de) Received: (from olli@localhost) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i5N8NNrO060698; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 10:23:23 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from olli) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 10:23:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <200406230823.i5N8NNrO060698@lurza.secnetix.de> From: Oliver Fromme To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <20040622164400.D845@ganymede.hub.org> X-Newsgroups: list.freebsd-stable User-Agent: tin/1.5.4-20000523 ("1959") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.10-RELEASE (i386)) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: nullfs in 4.10 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 08:23:27 -0000 Marc G. Fournier 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