On 03/02/07 08:37, Steven Hartland wrote:
Eric Anderson wrote:
On 03/02/07 07:46, Steven Hartland wrote:
Mounting an NFS share on top of a skimmed down /usr is very common,
and very desirable. You may mount /usr from a small read-only
partition (vnode file, etc) and then mount a different partition or
NFS over it if you detect the one you want.
I think this comes down to: if it hurts, stop doing it. :)
Maybe sysinstall should warn you that you are double mounting, but I
don't want it to stop letting me do it.
Interesting if that's a valid thing to do why does everything
break when its done? Is it ment to be doing a union hence you get
the combined contents of both? If so its not working correctly in
this case :( Can you provide me with more info on how this is
supposed to work eric please.
No, it won't do a union unless you use union. Things break because you
mounted an empty /usr on top of a working /usr. That just breaks
things, because you probably need binaries in /usr.
The OS doesn't know whether you want to mount an empty fs on a populated
one, or what. It does exactly what you ask it to do, and in this case,
it was a bad thing.
Think of a thin client that has just enough stuff in /usr to make it
boot and run a few tools. Then, depending on a startup option, it
mounts a more populated /usr from NFS (or even a local disk, doesn't
really matter) over the previous /usr.
The fact is this: you made a new partition, called it /usr, and told
sysinstall to mount it. It did. That happened to be a problem for you,
which I could imagine it would be. Now, I'm not claiming this is the
cause of your file system corruption issues. I'm just saying the
duplicate mount is not a bug, it's a feature.
Eric
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
