Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 22:12:00 +0000 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk> Cc: "freebsd-rc@freebsd.org" <rc@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Adding dependency on mountlate to mountd Message-ID: <CADLo838xeXMdcaW1kB0ZdUzkUGeAVuxUJ0sF_GHeUa8yFsNGuA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1F93E0D525B946B88405EC4203385E0A@multiplay.co.uk> References: <6A58ADA440454E5889DBA6D2D9C56180@multiplay.co.uk> <CAF6rxg=UoSONKXLub7RFTK6Hi7oXRgJ0c7gvhOXW53sa2h964Q@mail.gmail.com> <20121215091424.GS71906@kib.kiev.ua> <CADLo839yEpvMC_BhBzmJ2heNtdUtNHCQymqho4AkJP0hVfdr5g@mail.gmail.com> <1F93E0D525B946B88405EC4203385E0A@multiplay.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 15 December 2012 20:09, Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk> wrote: > ---- Original Message ----- >> >> From: Chris Rees On 15 Dec 2012 09:14, "Konstantin Belousov" >> <kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote: >> > It cannot be fine. It breaks local NFS mounts. >> >> Given that we can't have both, but we can have nullfs and thus solve this >> problem. >> Is there something that local NFS mounts can do that nullfs won't? > > > Using local NFS mounts seems a bit of strange thing to do, whats the > reason for the requirement for these? > > Wouldnt nullfs mounts replace this requirement and perform better? Here's an idea, how about in the mountlate script, we pass SIGHUP to mountd at the end (or simply restart it, but that'd be slower)? This would cover your use case and Kostik's example too. Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo838xeXMdcaW1kB0ZdUzkUGeAVuxUJ0sF_GHeUa8yFsNGuA>