From owner-freebsd-current Wed Mar 25 15:24:03 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA28988 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Wed, 25 Mar 1998 15:24:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from parkplace.cet.co.jp (parkplace.cet.co.jp [202.32.64.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA28956 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 1998 15:24:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from michaelh@cet.co.jp) Received: from localhost (michaelh@localhost) by parkplace.cet.co.jp (8.8.8/CET-v2.2) with SMTP id XAA18420; Wed, 25 Mar 1998 23:23:00 GMT Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 08:23:00 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock To: John Polstra cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Status of null filesystem? In-Reply-To: <199803252057.MAA13689@austin.polstra.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 25 Mar 1998, John Polstra wrote: > Does nullfs work in -current, and is it safe to use it? How about > in 2.2.6? Kato-san has made some definite improvements, but it still has some problems if you use it heavily. I'm in the process of cleaning up the WILLRELE problems, and Tor Egge has done some very good analysis of other existing problems and has suggested some solutions. For example, vnode revocation complicates nullfs's caching of the lower vnode. Tor implemented eager recycling in his private tree and then he suggested tracking the Capability in the nullnode when we discussed alternatives. I think I like this approach better. This is only happening in current. I suggest using it casually, we could use more eyes on it. Regards, Mike To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message