Date: 24 Jun 2003 16:51:40 +1000 From: Andrew Reilly <areilly@bigpond.net.au> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Mohammad Nayyer Zubair <mzubair@ic.sunysb.edu> Subject: Re: ideas about a unioning file system Message-ID: <1056437500.48266.64.camel@gurney.reilly.home> In-Reply-To: <3EF7EFCB.4A4BACB8@mindspring.com> References: <Pine.SOL.4.56.0306191803340.16978@sparky.ic.sunysb.edu> <1056423804.48266.54.camel@gurney.reilly.home> <3EF7EFCB.4A4BACB8@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 16:29, Terry Lambert wrote: > Andrew Reilly wrote: > > On Fri, 2003-06-20 at 08:15, Mohammad Nayyer Zubair wrote: > > > Has anyone extensively used freebsd unionfs? From a system/network > > > administrator or from a kernel developer standpoint, what do you like > > > about it and what you dont like about it? > > > > I'm using unionfs thusly: > > > > # Device Mountpoint FStype Options Dump > > /dev/vinum/vinum0 /usr ufs rw,union 0 > > 2 > > Actually, this is the union mount option, which isn't the same > thing as unionfs. Aah. OK. I wondered a bit about that myself. So: what's unionfs? Does the union option in fstab invoke mount_union, or is union mounting something that mount manages for itself, independent of the FStype? Having looked at mount_union, I don't think that I like the copy-to-top-layer on write semantics for objects that exist in the bottom layer. I hope that's not happening to my system. > It's a mount option, not a file system. 8-). How could it be otherwise? -- Andrew Reilly <areilly@bigpond.net.au>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1056437500.48266.64.camel>