Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 19:39:10 +0100 From: Bill Squire <billsf@curacao.n2it.nl> To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Anyone use nullfs or unionfs ? Message-ID: <20040325183910.GA74758@curacao.n2it.nl> In-Reply-To: <20040325034448.GF8779@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <20040323190700.GC4843@curacao.n2it.nl> <20040325034448.GF8779@dragon.nuxi.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 07:44:48PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 08:07:00PM +0100, Bill Squire wrote: > > Nullfs works fine on the high-end amd i386 machines, but is rather 'thrashy' > > and inefficient on amd64. Is this a hardware bug or is there a patch to make > > it work? > ... > > As for unionfs, it would be very nice if it truely worked. It seems to not > > be able to deal with very large overlays. > > Please provide some details. You've given no motivation to developers to > go look at something they might now have used before. HOW does it not > work? Do you have logs showing this? Do you have ERROR MESSAGES showing > this? Do you have a BENCHMARK showing this? > > -- > -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) Things change fast with the amd64 development. Thererfore I will start the virtual server again and try to get actual information. Sorry the response was a bit emotional and empty. Regardless, the code and methods I'm using will be placed on my server at <calyx.nl> for all to see and improve. Actual problems with amd64 (if still so) will be posted here. In either case I will announce the availability of this rather unusual adaptation of the FreeBSD jails here. I would like to see it 'ports' with the production release. It will work with amd64, but last try was disappointing. Billhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040325183910.GA74758>