From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 15 21:42:36 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C67FB16A4CE for ; Thu, 15 Jul 2004 21:42:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ylpvm29.prodigy.net (ylpvm29-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.57.60]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8513F43D48 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 2004 21:42:36 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (adsl-64-169-107-19.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net [64.169.107.19]) i6FLgY0W018775; Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:42:35 -0400 Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9BEE752B43; Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:42:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:42:31 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway To: "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC" Message-ID: <20040715214231.GA32789@xor.obsecurity.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: unionfs on CURRENT for read only OK? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 21:42:36 -0000 --BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 02:44:47PM -0600, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote: > Hi >=20 > The man pages for unionfs basically say to avoid it as it has problems.= =20 > However, I was wondering about people's experience with it for read=20 > only mounts. I would like to do a bunch of read only mounts. I=20 > currently use nfs with localhost: but think that performance might be=20 > better with unionfs. I kind of get the impression that the unionfs=20 > problems are with read write and so would like to solicit opinions and=20 > experience running on FBSD5 (CURRENT going to 5.3-R). Sounds like you actually want nullfs, which works fine at least when read-only. Kris --BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFA9vpHWry0BWjoQKURAnLvAJ9G1DVjY2y1PrSpGW4rpblpPXqTDgCeN9Hd 446Rd6O1nhPAZMAKbdL3YW8= =nfYD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl--