Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 07 Mar 2024 15:09:19 +0100
From:      Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net>
To:        Christos Chatzaras <chris@cretaforce.gr>
Cc:        Current <current@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Reason why "nocache" option is not displayed in "mount"?
Message-ID:  <0fc7f06e0d58f95c43198630e0895232@Leidinger.net>
In-Reply-To: <22017329-8EA9-4477-B5DB-412ABA34788D@cretaforce.gr>
References:  <09bb45dea82d96c11f34cc48dda540dc@Leidinger.net> <22017329-8EA9-4477-B5DB-412ABA34788D@cretaforce.gr>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)

--=_8b8d1a49efb7536f4fe6706c064f4810
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed

Am 2024-03-07 14:59, schrieb Christos Chatzaras:
>> what is the reason why "nocache" is not displayed in the output of 
>> "mount" for nullfs options?
>> 
>> # grep packages /etc/fstab.commit_leidinger_net
>> /shared/ports/packages          
>> /space/jails/commit.leidinger.net/shared/ports/packages         nullfs 
>>  rw,noatime,nocache      0 0
>> 
>> # mount | grep commit | grep packages
>> /shared/ports/packages on 
>> /space/jails/commit.leidinger.net/shared/ports/packages (nullfs, 
>> local, noatime, noexec, nosuid, nfsv4acls)
>> 
>> Context: I wanted to check if poudriere is mounting with or without 
>> "nocache", and instead of reading the source I wanted to do it more 
>> quickly by looking at the mount options.
> 
> In my setup, I mount the /home directory using nullfs with the nocache 
> option to facilitate access for certain jails. The primary reason for 
> employing nocache is due to the implementation of ZFS quotas on the 
> main system, which do not accurately reflect changes in file usage by 
> users within the jail unless nocache is used. When files are added or 
> removed by a user within jail, their disk usage wasn't properly updated 
> on the main system until I started using nocache. Based on this 
> experience, I'm confident that applying nocache works as expected in 
> your scenario as well.

It does. The question is how to I _see_ that a mount point is _setup_ 
with nocache? In the above example the FS _is_ mounted with nocache, but 
it is _not displayed_ in the output.

Bye,
Alexander.

-- 
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander@Leidinger.net: PGP 0x8F31830F9F2772BF
http://www.FreeBSD.org    netchild@FreeBSD.org  : PGP 0x8F31830F9F2772BF

--=_8b8d1a49efb7536f4fe6706c064f4810
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
 name=signature.asc
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename=signature.asc;
 size=833
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=Hqe9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=_8b8d1a49efb7536f4fe6706c064f4810--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0fc7f06e0d58f95c43198630e0895232>