From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Tue Dec 22 09:35:00 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ED7CA4FC33 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 09:35:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danny@cs.huji.ac.il) Received: from kabab.cs.huji.ac.il (kabab.cs.huji.ac.il [132.65.116.210]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF4711A84 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 09:34:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danny@cs.huji.ac.il) Received: from chamsa.cs.huji.ac.il ([132.65.80.19]) by kabab.cs.huji.ac.il with esmtp id 1aBJL9-000JgJ-W6; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:34:44 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) Subject: Re: Should DEBUG_VFS_LOCKS messages be reported as bugs? From: Daniel Braniss In-Reply-To: <1331010544.139156804.1450706805234.JavaMail.zimbra@uoguelph.ca> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:34:43 +0200 Cc: Yuri , Freebsd hackers list Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <567791E9.50207@rawbw.com> <56779542.8020205@rawbw.com> <1331010544.139156804.1450706805234.JavaMail.zimbra@uoguelph.ca> To: Rick Macklem X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 09:35:00 -0000 > On 21 Dec 2015, at 16:06, Rick Macklem wrote: >=20 > Yuri wrote: >> On 12/20/2015 21:45, Yuri wrote: >>>=20 >>> it prints some messages that look like errors, see below. >>=20 >> I have recently began mounting /usr/ports as nullfs and unionfs on = top >> of it, and I believe this causes the system crashes during the = intense >> file activity on the unionfs-ed /usr/ports. >> /usr/ports.patches on /usr/ports (nullfs, local, read-only) >> :/usr/ports.subversion on /usr/ports (unionfs, local, noatime) >>=20 > Unionfs is broken. See the BUGS section of "man mount_unionfs". > Here a snippet from it: > THIS FILE SYSTEM TYPE IS NOT YET FULLY SUPPORTED (READ: IT DOESN'T = WORK) > AND USING IT MAY, IN FACT, DESTROY DATA ON YOUR SYSTEM. USE AT = YOUR OWN > RISK. BEWARE OF DOG. SLIPPERY WHEN WET. BATTERIES NOT INCLUDED. >=20 > As such, reports for problems that you encounter when not using = unionfs are > far more useful, imho. >=20 I have been using unionfs for a very long time, mounting /etc (nfs read = only) and md whiteout any problems. I=E2=80=99m not sure if i tested it on 11, but i = will soon. yes, it can be problematic for other crazy things, but in my case, where = many of=20 my hosts are dataless so the unionfs is a great simplifier :-) just my 2 cents. > rick >=20 >> The messages I reported are related to this. >>=20 >> Yuri >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list >> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to = "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >>=20 > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to = "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"