Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:40:13 -0600 From: "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC" <chad@shire.net> To: <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Thanks! Re: unionfs on CURRENT for read only OK? Message-ID: <1525E347-D6C9-11D8-BE2C-003065A70D30@shire.net> In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA0VcX9IoJqUaXPS8MjT1PdsKAAAAQAAAA8lpQYWhFtkeCIbqVLTKLbgEAAAAA@telia.com> References: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA0VcX9IoJqUaXPS8MjT1PdsKAAAAQAAAA8lpQYWhFtkeCIbqVLTKLbgEAAAAA@telia.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jul 15, 2004, at 4:57 PM, Daniel Eriksson wrote: > Chad Leigh wrote: > >> The man pages for unionfs basically say to avoid it as it has >> problems. >> However, I was wondering about people's experience with it >> for read >> only mounts. > > The nullfs man page says mostly the same thing, and I'm using it > extensively > on one of my servers (200+ rw mounts) without any problems (yet). I've > been > running like this for 10 days now using an up-to-date 5-CURRENT. > Writes are > done both to the underlying filesystem and through the nullfs mount, > but > most of the access is read (10-to-1 ratio for read-vs-write probably). > > And to make it even more interesting the underlying filesystems reside > on a > mixture of "old" vinum arrays, ataraid arrays and single discs. > > I do have some problems, but I had them even before I started using > mount_nullfs so they should not be related. Thanks to all who replied. Yes, I was thinking of nullfs. Sorry. I will give it a try and I appreciate the responses from everyone. Thanks Chad
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1525E347-D6C9-11D8-BE2C-003065A70D30>