From owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org  Wed Jun  6 18:49:26 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 91E19FDE5EF
 for <freebsd-fs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>; Wed,  6 Jun 2018 18:49:26 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from spork@bway.net)
Received: from smtp1.bway.net (smtp1.bway.net [216.220.96.27])
 (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 38B1081C09;
 Wed,  6 Jun 2018 18:49:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from spork@bway.net)
Received: from frankentosh.sporklab.com
 (pool-71-187-162-242.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net [71.187.162.242])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 (Authenticated sender: spork@bway.net)
 by smtp1.bway.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C999C9586D;
 Wed,  6 Jun 2018 14:49:19 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Subject: Re: Is unionfs usable on -CURRENT?
From: Charles Sprickman <spork@bway.net>
In-Reply-To: <20180606135204.GA44323@in-addr.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 14:49:19 -0400
Cc: Lev Serebryakov <lev@FreeBSD.org>,
 freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5E49401A-E713-452A-B255-234C42906DA9@bway.net>
References: <3a040dd0-5017-755a-1ce4-bc855146c404@FreeBSD.org>
 <20180606135204.GA44323@in-addr.com>
To: Gary Palmer <gpalmer@freebsd.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
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 18:49:26 -0000


> 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"