From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Mar 10 20:15:46 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 9F8B216A4CE; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 20:15:46 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [200.46.204.220])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 4CE3843D3F; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 20:15:46 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from scrappy@hub.org)
Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144])
	by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 601DF1299F6;
	Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:15:43 -0400 (AST)
Received: from hub.org ([200.46.204.220])
 by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id 47284-01; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 20:15:43 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ganymede.hub.org (blk-222-46-186.eastlink.ca [24.222.46.186])
	by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BF121299F2;
	Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:15:42 -0400 (AST)
Received: by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id B0F5C5FC39; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:15:43 -0400 (AST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD0415FBB9;
	Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:15:43 -0400 (AST)
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:15:43 -0400 (AST)
From: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
To: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <20050310170715.GD34206@hub.freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <20050310161506.Y92893@ganymede.hub.org>
References: <200503091838.06322.mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com>
	<87ll8vn32j.fsf@neva.vlink.ru>
	<20050310123852.F92893@ganymede.hub.org>
	<20050310170715.GD34206@hub.freebsd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
cc: Denis Shaposhnikov <dsh@neva.vlink.ru>
cc: Andy Hilker <ah@crypta.net>
Subject: Re: the current status of nullfs, unionfs
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/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: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 20:15:46 -0000

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Kris Kennaway wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:45:04PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Andy Hilker wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> You (Denis Shaposhnikov) wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Kris" == Kris Kennaway <kris@freebsd.org> writes:
>>>>
>>>> Kris> nullfs seems to work fine, unionfs is very fragile and easily
>>>> Kris> exploded.
>>>>
>>>> nullfs is absolutely useless for jail's because TOO slow.
>>>
>>>
>>> What do you mean exactly, how do you benchmark this?
>>
>> That's okay, my experiences are that nullfs is too fragile and easily
>> exploded ...
>
> I was referring to 5.x and above.

Sorry, jump'd into the thread late, and ended up getting caught up in the 
archives *after* sending ... I haven't risked 5.x for production servers 
yet because of its issues :(

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664