Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:55:52 +0100 From: Jeremie Le Hen <jeremie@le-hen.org> To: "Simon L. Nielsen" <simon@FreeBSD.org> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: the current status of nullfs, unionfs Message-ID: <20050310115552.GK34822@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> In-Reply-To: <20050310114410.GJ4908@eddie.nitro.dk> References: <200503091838.06322.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> <20050310004919.GA34206@hub.freebsd.org> <87d5u7n2xh.fsf@neva.vlink.ru> <20050310114410.GJ4908@eddie.nitro.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> That obviously depend on your use of jails and nullfs. It works just > fine for me. For me too. I mount /bin /sbin /lib /usr/bin /usr/sbin /usr/lib /usr/libexec /usr/libdata /usr/share in all my jails using nullfs, thus I avoid wasting storage space and an upgrade of the host also automatically updates all jails. This is IMO a very neat way do manage jails. But since my jails are neither very stressed nor time critical, I can't tell how high the speed penalty is with nullfs. I'm pretty curious about this Regards, -- Jeremie Le Hen < jeremie at le-hen dot org >< ttz at chchile dot org >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050310115552.GK34822>