From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Nov 9 10:45:20 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08ACD16A4CE for ; Sun, 9 Nov 2003 10:45:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (u46n208.hfx.eastlink.ca [24.222.46.208]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2479F43FA3 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 2003 10:45:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) Received: by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D135F34524; Sun, 9 Nov 2003 14:43:04 -0400 (AST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CECA333DC2; Sun, 9 Nov 2003 14:43:04 -0400 (AST) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 14:43:04 -0400 (AST) From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: Alexey Dokuchaev In-Reply-To: <20031109085459.GA31751@regency.nsu.ru> Message-ID: <20031109143838.X12394@ganymede.hub.org> References: <20031109085459.GA31751@regency.nsu.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Status of unionfs in -STABLE X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 18:45:20 -0000 On Sun, 9 Nov 2003, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > Hi there, > > Recently I've began to consider making some use of unionfs in > (semi-)production environment. Can someone aware of its current status > in -STABLE comment a bit on this subject? I use it *quite* extensively on all my production servers ... one is running >90 unionfs mounted file systems to service as many jail'd environments ... current uptime on all 4 servers is *knock on wood* 27 days, without incident. There are a couple of conditions that I've noticed can force a crash as a result of unionfs, pkg_delete seeming to be one of them, and trying to work with a UNIX socket being the other ... Beyond that, I've been using unionfs for almost 2 years now ... there was a period there where I was hitting some major limits with vfs "file descriptors" that both Tor and David did work on ... but, beyond those, I've not been disappointed with using unionfs ... One caveat I will say though ... if it crashes, fsck is *painfully* slow ... unionfs creates a bunch of 'zero length directories', and fsck has to go through and clear each and every one of those ... I've had fsck's last >11hrs on a 100Gig file system :)