From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 10 16:45:08 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36B6216A4CE for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:45:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [200.46.204.220]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E6EF43D5D for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:45:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DDAD1299BA; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:45:06 -0400 (AST) Received: from hub.org ([200.46.204.220]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 82914-06; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:45:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (blk-222-46-186.eastlink.ca [24.222.46.186]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1ADB1299F2; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:45:05 -0400 (AST) Received: by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C49BB5F585; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:45:04 -0400 (AST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0E8B5F3E9; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:45:04 -0400 (AST) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:45:04 -0400 (AST) From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: Andy Hilker In-Reply-To: <20050310160852.GB1718@mail.crypta.net> Message-ID: <20050310123852.F92893@ganymede.hub.org> References: <200503091838.06322.mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com> <20050310004919.GA34206@hub.freebsd.org> <87ll8vn32j.fsf@neva.vlink.ru> <20050310160852.GB1718@mail.crypta.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org cc: Denis Shaposhnikov Subject: Re: the current status of nullfs, unionfs X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:45:08 -0000 On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Andy Hilker wrote: > Hi, > > You (Denis Shaposhnikov) wrote: >>>>>>> "Kris" == Kris Kennaway writes: >> >> Kris> nullfs seems to work fine, unionfs is very fragile and easily >> Kris> exploded. >> >> nullfs is absolutely useless for jail's because TOO slow. > > > What do you mean exactly, how do you benchmark this? That's okay, my experiences are that nullfs is too fragile and easily exploded ... unionfs itself, though, isn't *rock solid*, but considering the loads that I throw at it on a daily basis, its alot more solid then the man pages indicate ... One server I have running 80+ jails on, each with their own unionfs running on it, and the last crash was a result of: panic: ufs_direnter : compact2 uptimes on our servers, all of which use unionfs extensively: pluto# ruptime jupiter up 11+23:09, 0 users, load 0.65, 0.78, 1.06 mars up 12+01:06, 0 users, load 0.53, 0.50, 0.55 neptune up 1+21:42, 3 users, load 2.03, 3.16, 3.10 pluto up 12+00:54, 3 users, load 1.33, 1.12, 1.34 venus up 12+00:00, 0 users, load 2.99, 10.73, 15.76 venus/neptune each run >80 jails ... And the reason why the other 4 servers are only around 12 days right now is because we just moved the servers to a new rack ... All servers run 4-STABLE, some a bit older, but a couple are less then a month old ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664