Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 14:49:19 -0400 From: Charles Sprickman <spork@bway.net> To: Gary Palmer <gpalmer@freebsd.org> Cc: Lev Serebryakov <lev@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is unionfs usable on -CURRENT? Message-ID: <5E49401A-E713-452A-B255-234C42906DA9@bway.net> In-Reply-To: <20180606135204.GA44323@in-addr.com> References: <3a040dd0-5017-755a-1ce4-bc855146c404@FreeBSD.org> <20180606135204.GA44323@in-addr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Jun 6, 2018, at 9:52 AM, Gary Palmer <gpalmer@freebsd.org> wrote: >=20 > On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 04:14:35PM +0300, Lev Serebryakov wrote: >>=20 >> "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? >>=20 >> Unfortunately, "net-mgmt/unifi5" want to put all working data = directly >> to its installation directory, which resides on R/O FS of NanoBSD = image. >=20 > 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 Just chiming in as a casual observer here, but that=E2=80=99s extremely = confusing. I think most people would assume =E2=80=9C-o fstype=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9C-= t fstype=E2=80=9D would basically do the same thing. Is there any reason to keep the broken version = readily accessible? Thanks, Charles > Regards, >=20 > Gary > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5E49401A-E713-452A-B255-234C42906DA9>