Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 7 Mar 2024 15:59:48 +0200
From:      Christos Chatzaras <chris@cretaforce.gr>
To:        Current <current@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Reason why "nocache" option is not displayed in "mount"?
Message-ID:  <22017329-8EA9-4477-B5DB-412ABA34788D@cretaforce.gr>
In-Reply-To: <09bb45dea82d96c11f34cc48dda540dc@Leidinger.net>
References:  <09bb45dea82d96c11f34cc48dda540dc@Leidinger.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

> what is the reason why "nocache" is not displayed in the output of =
"mount" for nullfs options?
>=20
> # grep packages /etc/fstab.commit_leidinger_net
> /shared/ports/packages          =
/space/jails/commit.leidinger.net/shared/ports/packages         nullfs  =
rw,noatime,nocache      0 0
>=20
> # mount | grep commit | grep packages
> /shared/ports/packages on =
/space/jails/commit.leidinger.net/shared/ports/packages (nullfs, local, =
noatime, noexec, nosuid, nfsv4acls)
>=20
> Context: I wanted to check if poudriere is mounting with or without =
"nocache", and instead of reading the source I wanted to do it more =
quickly by looking at the mount options.

In my setup, I mount the /home directory using nullfs with the nocache =
option to facilitate access for certain jails. The primary reason for =
employing nocache is due to the implementation of ZFS quotas on the main =
system, which do not accurately reflect changes in file usage by users =
within the jail unless nocache is used. When files are added or removed =
by a user within jail, their disk usage wasn't properly updated on the =
main system until I started using nocache. Based on this experience, I'm =
confident that applying nocache works as expected in your scenario as =
well.=



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?22017329-8EA9-4477-B5DB-412ABA34788D>