From owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org  Wed Jun  6 13:52:07 2018
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E231FF6BFD
 for <freebsd-fs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>; Wed,  6 Jun 2018 13:52:07 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from gpalmer@freebsd.org)
Received: from mail.in-addr.com (mail.in-addr.com
 [IPv6:2a01:4f8:191:61e8::2525:2525])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED08F75585;
 Wed,  6 Jun 2018 13:52:06 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from gpalmer@freebsd.org)
Received: from gjp by mail.in-addr.com with local (Exim 4.91 (FreeBSD))
 (envelope-from <gpalmer@freebsd.org>)
 id 1fQYr7-000HcO-1m; Wed, 06 Jun 2018 14:52:05 +0100
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 14:52:05 +0100
From: Gary Palmer <gpalmer@freebsd.org>
To: Lev Serebryakov <lev@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Is unionfs usable on -CURRENT?
Message-ID: <20180606135204.GA44323@in-addr.com>
References: <3a040dd0-5017-755a-1ce4-bc855146c404@FreeBSD.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3a040dd0-5017-755a-1ce4-bc855146c404@FreeBSD.org>
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: gpalmer@freebsd.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on mail.in-addr.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-fs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2018 13:52:07 -0000

On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 04:14:35PM +0300, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> 
>  "man mount_unionfs" is very scary. Is is still true? Maybe, here are
> some other workarounds to have one directory with static data on R/O FS
> and transient data on R/W FS?
> 
>  Unfortunately, "net-mgmt/unifi5" want to put all working data directly
> to its installation directory, which resides on R/O FS of NanoBSD image.

I believe the warnings are still at least partly true.  The usual
suggestion is to use "mount -o union" instead of "mount -t unionfs".
"mount -o union" doesn't have the unionfs issues

Regards,

Gary