From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 2 17:26:11 2004 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 B5AD316A4CE for ; Sun, 2 May 2004 17:26:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from VARK.homeunix.com (adsl-68-124-137-57.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [68.124.137.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 706BE43D53 for ; Sun, 2 May 2004 17:26:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from VARK.homeunix.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by VARK.homeunix.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i430Pqnx012341; Sun, 2 May 2004 17:25:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: (from das@localhost) by VARK.homeunix.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i430PqMv012340; Sun, 2 May 2004 17:25:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 17:25:52 -0700 From: David Schultz To: Jacques Marnweck Message-ID: <20040503002552.GA12216@VARK.homeunix.com> Mail-Followup-To: Jacques Marnweck , freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG References: <20040502231912.GA7750@raider.ataris.co.za> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040502231912.GA7750@raider.ataris.co.za> cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Issues using unionfs and vnode backed disks 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: Mon, 03 May 2004 00:26:11 -0000 On Mon, May 03, 2004, Jacques Marnweck wrote: > Basically how I do jail()'ed virtual machines is that I first create a > base disk image say base.vn which all the jails get so I only have to maintain > one base installation which can be shared amongst multiple jails. > > Another bug I noticed which had similar side effects was where I had /usr/ports > mounted below /home/jails/base/usr/ports and from the jail()'ed virtual > machine I typed 'make install clean' to install a port, the box had a > deadlock. I seem to recall that there are known issues with unionfs on memory-backed devices. See also PR kern/54534. > >From reading various posts here, I'm assuming that unionfs under FreeBSD > 5.2.1-RELEASE-p5 should have less issues, and should not cause the > problems I'm experiencing? > > Also I've tested this a couple of times today. Who is maintaining the > unionfs code, as I would like to chat to him/her. I'm not sure what gave you that impression; unionfs has always been an unsupported use-at-your-own-risk feature *precisely* because it doesn't have a maintainer. (See the mount_unionfs(8) manpage.) Occasionally people fix problems with it, but it isn't held to the same standards as the rest of the system because nobody has the necessary combination of time, interest, and ability to work on it. You're welcome to report problems, and that's definitely beneficial when someone does have time to look at it, but please check the PR database to make sure you're not submitting a duplicate of an existing PR.