From owner-freebsd-fs Sat Jul 7 18:18:57 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from blackhelicopters.org (geburah.blackhelicopters.org [209.69.178.18]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E676A37B403 for ; Sat, 7 Jul 2001 18:18:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mwlucas@blackhelicopters.org) Received: (from mwlucas@localhost) by blackhelicopters.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA05149 for fs@freebsd.org; Sat, 7 Jul 2001 21:18:54 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mwlucas) Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 21:18:54 -0400 From: Michael Lucas To: fs@freebsd.org Subject: unionfs status for 5.0? Message-ID: <20010707211854.A5100@blackhelicopters.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hello, I'm working on a book that will be covering FreeBSD 5.0, scheduled for publication in the first part of next year. cvsweb shows that people have been through unionfs lately. Is unionfs still considered dangerous? I'd like to discuss it in the book, as it's massively cool and very useful in jails, but I don't want to recommend things that will suck in a production environment. Since you're the poor folks who have to support whatever I tell people to do, I'm asking you. Should I discuss it, or shouldn't I? Regards, ==ml PS: I also presume nullfs is still an atrocity to be avoided under pain of, well, pain? -- Michael Lucas mwlucas@blackhelicopters.org http://www.blackhelicopters.org/~mwlucas/ Big Scary Daemons: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/q/Big_Scary_Daemons To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message