From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 23 23:52:12 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A12637B401 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:52:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta04bw.bigpond.com (mta04bw.bigpond.com [139.134.6.87]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E95B43FA3 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:52:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from areilly@bigpond.net.au) Received: from areilly.bpc-users.org ([144.135.24.72]) by mta04bw.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 mta04bw Jul 16 2002 22:47:55) with SMTP id HGZ4DX00.J5B for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 16:51:33 +1000 Received: from cpe-144-132-191-61.nsw.bigpond.net.au ([144.132.191.61]) by bwmam02bpa.bigpond.com(MAM REL_3_3_2c 17/2523322); 24 Jun 2003 16:51:35 Received: (qmail 66005 invoked from network); 24 Jun 2003 06:51:41 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (andrew@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 24 Jun 2003 06:51:41 -0000 From: Andrew Reilly To: Terry Lambert In-Reply-To: <3EF7EFCB.4A4BACB8@mindspring.com> References: <1056423804.48266.54.camel@gurney.reilly.home> <3EF7EFCB.4A4BACB8@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1056437500.48266.64.camel@gurney.reilly.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.0 Date: 24 Jun 2003 16:51:40 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org cc: Mohammad Nayyer Zubair Subject: Re: ideas about a unioning file system X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 06:52:12 -0000 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