From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 13 17:04:35 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4821A16A40F for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 17:04:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rea-fbsd@codelabs.ru) Received: from pobox.codelabs.ru (pobox.codelabs.ru [144.206.177.45]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E87243D62 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 17:02:47 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rea-fbsd@codelabs.ru) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=simple; s=one; d=codelabs.ru; h=Received:Date:From:To:Cc:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:Sender:X-Spam-Status:Subject; b=hCx5L3RcPZ7YhCdpYdeW7FtU/lqFy+FzpYzLnaYDzMZu4YKxdKsjLO1XYE41RTBl3XghauYJr+qnwDgpybjZMGLD7bkRGTaV+3muT2cCUYQrF8djBRzqKETO1a3TZ5nhpN9fs/HYwws1KUEeMRUfs/wJ/cqJUQRGcJi2shaLg2I=; Received: from codelabs.ru (pobox.codelabs.ru [144.206.177.45]) by pobox.codelabs.ru with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) id 1GjfCb-000D3Y-FP; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:02:33 +0300 Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:02:26 +0300 From: Eygene Ryabinkin To: Erik Udo Message-ID: <20061113170226.GP1044@codelabs.ru> References: <455890A5.7090506@dnainternet.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <455890A5.7090506@dnainternet.net> Sender: rea-fbsd@codelabs.ru X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=4.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_20 Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: unionfs in livecd? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 17:04:35 -0000 Erik, good day! > So, how is unionfs? I heard it's still buggy especially if you mount multiple > memory devices. At least in 6.2-BETA the original unionfs leads to random locks for disk-based partitions. I can reproduce it in 15-30 minutes of using unionfs-mounted filesystem. > I found a link to a patch from the freesbie-projects website that somehow > patches the current. > http://people.freebsd.org/%7Edaichi/unionfs/ > Should i use this? The unionfs patchsets from Daichi Goto are very good, at least for me: I've not expirienced any lockups since 6.1. So, you probably should give it a try. My usage of unionfs-mounted filesystems is connected with sequentially serving large data transfers (about 2 Gb in a couple of minutes) to a moderate number of clients (aroung 100). These transfers are not frequent, but as they go they can produce a huge load spike to a server's filesystem. Such spikes are definitely locking up the filesystem with the original unionfs. -- Eygene