UNIONFS Stability
Hi All, How stable is unionfs? Reading the man page for mount_unionfs its says that its not. Is that still true or is it better on 5.x? ATM I'm running 4.8 Rgds Rus -- www: http://jvds.com | Virtual Servers from just $15/mo MSNM: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Totally Customizable Technology e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | FreeBSD Linux 10% donation to FreeBSD.org on each purchase ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: UNIONFS Stability
On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 11:30:15PM -0700, Rus Foster wrote: Hi All, How stable is unionfs? Reading the man page for mount_unionfs its says that its not. Is that still true or is it better on 5.x? ATM I'm running 4.8 mount -o union is very stable for me. note that this is not quite the same as mount_unionfs. i am using it on 5.1. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: UNIONFS Stability
On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 11:30:15PM -0700, Rus Foster wrote: Hi All, How stable is unionfs? Reading the man page for mount_unionfs its says that its not. Is that still true or is it better on 5.x? ATM I'm running 4.8 unionfs may work if you use it read-only and don't change files in the lower layer, but your mileage may vary (i.e. expect problems). There might be some work on improving stability in the future, but it's unlikely to be completely fixed soon. Kris pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
