Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:42:31 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC" <chad@shire.net> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: unionfs on CURRENT for read only OK? Message-ID: <20040715214231.GA32789@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <CF1C2A90-D69F-11D8-9ED8-003065A70D30@shire.net> References: <CF1C2A90-D69F-11D8-9ED8-003065A70D30@shire.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--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--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040715214231.GA32789>