From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 5 12:12:26 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5401816A4CE for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 12:12:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.praemunio.com (mail.praemunio.com [66.179.47.216]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CA39A43D91 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 12:12:25 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from frank@knobbe.us) Received: from localhost (HELO mail.knobbe.us) by localhost with SMTP; 5 May 2005 07:12:24 -0500 Received: from localhost by localhost with SMTP; 5 May 2005 07:12:23 -0500 From: Frank Knobbe To: Eirik =?ISO-8859-1?B?2A==?=verby In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-ylhXghT2SK5SzEzh0S/q" Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 07:12:21 -0500 Message-Id: <1115295141.87850.17.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.2 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port cc: "stable@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Current status of nullfs and/or unionfs? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 12:12:26 -0000 --=-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--