From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri May  6 10:44:29 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 6648916A4CE
	for <stable@freebsd.org>; Fri,  6 May 2005 10:44:29 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from anduin.net (anduin.net [212.12.46.226])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 253C743D7F
	for <stable@freebsd.org>; Fri,  6 May 2005 10:44:29 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from ltning@anduin.net)
Received: from eirik.unicore.no ([213.225.74.166] helo=[10.0.16.10])
	by anduin.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.50 (FreeBSD))
	id 1DU0Jn-000Cs9-EL; Fri, 06 May 2005 12:44:28 +0200
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.1.0.040913
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 12:44:20 +0200
From: Eirik =?ISO-8859-1?B?2A==?=verby <ltning@anduin.net>
To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
Message-ID: <BEA11724.14A48%ltning@anduin.net>
In-Reply-To: <20050505115903.K42300@ganymede.hub.org>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain;
	charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
cc: "stable@freebsd.org" <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
	<freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 10:44:29 -0000

On 05-05-05 16:59, "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 5 May 2005, Eirik [ISO-8859-1] =D8verby wrote:
>=20
>> The solution, or at least parts of it, would be to have certain parts 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
> I'm running 4.11 with ~90 mount/jails running on two of our servers ...
> haven't noticed any stability problems ... what are you seeing?

I was seeing panics and deadlocks (hangs), seemingly unrelated to the level
of disk activity, and sometimes I even had the suspicion that just having
such a mountpoint, even though the jail wasn't started, could be enough to
bring the system down. The problems appeared around 4.9/4.10.
Even though I mounted these read-only, I still saw data going bad in
directories that was null-mounted. This scared me away for a very long time
;)

I'm just now picking up on the unionfs use, seems to do what I want, but I
have no idea if it's stable or not. I suppose we'll be seeing that soon.

/Eirik

=20
> ----
> Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.or=
g)
> Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 76156=
64
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"