Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 07:12:21 -0500 From: Frank Knobbe <frank@knobbe.us> To: Eirik =?ISO-8859-1?B?2A==?=verby <ltning@anduin.net> Cc: "stable@freebsd.org" <stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Current status of nullfs and/or unionfs? Message-ID: <1115295141.87850.17.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <BE9FD8F8.149B1%ltning@anduin.net> References: <BE9FD8F8.149B1%ltning@anduin.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-ylhXghT2SK5SzEzh0S/q Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 14:06 +0200, Eirik =3D?ISO-8859-1?B?2A=3D=3D?=3Dverby wrote: > [...] The solution, or at least parts of it, would be to have certain par= ts of the > jail filesystems mounted in via nullfs (acceptable solution) or unionfs > (ideal solution). However, ever since FreeBSD 4.10 this has been a major > problem, as both filesystems started exhibiting major stability and data > integrity issues.=20 > [...] > What can I expect to see when trying nullfs and/or unionfs today? Has > anything changed? Don't know if anything has changed, but I'm using nullfs to mount the ports directory of the host into jails. No ill effects. Works great, both under 4.10 and 5.3. (Back when I toyed with unionfs, I found that to be a bit unstable. But nullfs appears pretty solid) Regards, Frank --=-ylhXghT2SK5SzEzh0S/q Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBCeg2lwBQKb2zelzoRAr/EAKD1UHjMBsCqhCaEPTd4xhXc89QsOACbBoyS SIdk1f5XpowWCrci+dGtzbc= =dYdD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-ylhXghT2SK5SzEzh0S/q--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1115295141.87850.17.camel>