Re: Current status of nullfs and/or unionfs?
On 06-05-05 13:14, "Danny Braniss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 06-05-05 09:25, "Danny Braniss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Interesting approach. Is this with 4.x or 5.x? How do you union-mount /etc (mount command/fstab entry)? >>> >>> been doing it since 4.x (i think x < 9) >> >> Any idea how unionfs will behave if stacked (more mounts on top of each >> other)? I was playing with the thought of having a "template" jail directory >> which I unionmount into my jails, then perhaps use your trick to union-mount >> a md device into certain points in the jail. Got a gut feeling about that? > > i have the feeling that that will get into trouble :-), but im no expert > here. If what you mean is: > > mount_unionfs /md-0 /jail-0 > and then > mount_unionfs /md-1 /jail-0/xyz > > which is not strickly 'stacked', might work and should be easy to try out, but > IMHO, breaks the KISS principle :-) I was more thinking, like, mount_unionfs -b /jails/jail_template /jails/jail-0 mount_unionfs /md-0 /jails/jail-0/etc for example. I could also imagine stacking unionfs on top of nullfs, like mount_nullfs /cdrom/jail_template /jails/jail-0 mount_unionfs /md-0 /jails/jail-0 alternatively mount_unionfs /nfs-0 /jails/jail-0 Sounds weird, I know, but we could use it... > and also, im not sure if: > mkdir /jail-0/xyz > mount_unionfs /md-1 /jail-0/xyz > is the same as the above. > > danny > > > ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Current status of nullfs and/or unionfs?
> On 06-05-05 09:25, "Danny Braniss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >> Interesting approach. Is this with 4.x or 5.x? How do you union-mount /etc > >> (mount command/fstab entry)? > >> > > > > been doing it since 4.x (i think x < 9) > > Any idea how unionfs will behave if stacked (more mounts on top of each > other)? I was playing with the thought of having a "template" jail directory > which I unionmount into my jails, then perhaps use your trick to union-mount > a md device into certain points in the jail. Got a gut feeling about that? i have the feeling that that will get into trouble :-), but im no expert here. If what you mean is: mount_unionfs /md-0 /jail-0 and then mount_unionfs /md-1 /jail-0/xyz which is not strickly 'stacked', might work and should be easy to try out, but IMHO, breaks the KISS principle :-) and also, im not sure if: mkdir /jail-0/xyz mount_unionfs /md-1 /jail-0/xyz is the same as the above. danny ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Current status of nullfs and/or unionfs?
On 06-05-05 09:25, "Danny Braniss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Interesting approach. Is this with 4.x or 5.x? How do you union-mount /etc >> (mount command/fstab entry)? >> > > been doing it since 4.x (i think x < 9) Any idea how unionfs will behave if stacked (more mounts on top of each other)? I was playing with the thought of having a "template" jail directory which I unionmount into my jails, then perhaps use your trick to union-mount a md device into certain points in the jail. Got a gut feeling about that? /Eirik > in initdiskless (5.x) we have: > > if [ -e /conf/union ]; then > kldload unionfs > mount_md 4096 /conf/etc > chmod 755 /conf/etc > mount_unionfs /conf/etc /etc > ls -R /etc > /dev/null > touch /etc/.sentinel > md_created_etc=created > fi > > danny > > > ___ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Current status of nullfs and/or unionfs?
On 05-05-05 16:59, "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 5 May 2005, Eirik [ISO-8859-1] Øverby wrote: > >> The solution, or at least parts of it, would be to have certain parts of >> the jail filesystems mounted in via nullfs (acceptable solution) or >> unionfs (ideal solution). However, ever since FreeBSD 4.10 this has been >> a major problem, as both filesystems started exhibiting major stability >> and data integrity issues. > > I'm running 4.11 with ~90 mount/jails running on two of our servers ... > haven't noticed any stability problems ... what are you seeing? I was seeing panics and deadlocks (hangs), seemingly unrelated to the level of disk activity, and sometimes I even had the suspicion that just having such a mountpoint, even though the jail wasn't started, could be enough to bring the system down. The problems appeared around 4.9/4.10. Even though I mounted these read-only, I still saw data going bad in directories that was null-mounted. This scared me away for a very long time ;) I'm just now picking up on the unionfs use, seems to do what I want, but I have no idea if it's stable or not. I suppose we'll be seeing that soon. /Eirik > > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 > ___ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Current status of nullfs and/or unionfs?
> Interesting approach. Is this with 4.x or 5.x? How do you union-mount /etc > (mount command/fstab entry)? > been doing it since 4.x (i think x < 9) in initdiskless (5.x) we have: if [ -e /conf/union ]; then kldload unionfs mount_md 4096 /conf/etc chmod 755 /conf/etc mount_unionfs /conf/etc /etc ls -R /etc > /dev/null touch /etc/.sentinel md_created_etc=created fi danny ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Current status of nullfs and/or unionfs?
On 06-05-05 08:18, "Danny Braniss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Eirik Øverby writes: >>> [...] >>> What can I expect to see when trying nullfs and/or unionfs today? Has >>> anything changed? Do I have even a remote chance of making it work - and if >>> it doesn't work, what are my chances of anyone having time or energy to look >>> into it? I'm an admin only, no coder, otherwise I'd be happy to look into it >>> myself. >> >> I'm using unionfs to mount a copy of my ports tree into a jail on a >> fairly currently patched 5.3 system. It works beautifully except that >> it sometimes can't be unmounted as the machine shuts down, leading to >> an fsck. >> >> I've been trying to characterize it. Seems like I can mount it, start >> a jail, stop the jail, and unmount it just fine. However if I do >> anything in the jail's ports tree, then it won't unmount. Last >> experiment I did was to log into the jail and do a couple of 'syncs', >> then log out, shut the jail down and unmount it. That worked that one >> time. >> >> Not enough to file a bug yet, but the anecdote might be useful. > > > we use unionfs with our diskless, mounting the read-only root via nfs, then > union /etc with a memory file system, the per host files (rc.conf, fstab ...) > get copied to it, so that after a reboot no need to fsck anything. works > like a charm! Interesting approach. Is this with 4.x or 5.x? How do you union-mount /etc (mount command/fstab entry)? /Eirik > > a happy user of unionfs, > danny > > > ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Current status of nullfs and/or unionfs?
> Eirik Øverby writes: > > [...] > > What can I expect to see when trying nullfs and/or unionfs today? Has > > anything changed? Do I have even a remote chance of making it work - and if > > it doesn't work, what are my chances of anyone having time or energy to > look > > into it? I'm an admin only, no coder, otherwise I'd be happy to look into > it > > myself. > > I'm using unionfs to mount a copy of my ports tree into a jail on a > fairly currently patched 5.3 system. It works beautifully except that > it sometimes can't be unmounted as the machine shuts down, leading to > an fsck. > > I've been trying to characterize it. Seems like I can mount it, start > a jail, stop the jail, and unmount it just fine. However if I do > anything in the jail's ports tree, then it won't unmount. Last > experiment I did was to log into the jail and do a couple of 'syncs', > then log out, shut the jail down and unmount it. That worked that one > time. > > Not enough to file a bug yet, but the anecdote might be useful. we use unionfs with our diskless, mounting the read-only root via nfs, then union /etc with a memory file system, the per host files (rc.conf, fstab ...) get copied to it, so that after a reboot no need to fsck anything. works like a charm! a happy user of unionfs, danny ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Current status of nullfs and/or unionfs?
Eirik Øverby writes: > [...] > What can I expect to see when trying nullfs and/or unionfs today? Has > anything changed? Do I have even a remote chance of making it work - and if > it doesn't work, what are my chances of anyone having time or energy to look > into it? I'm an admin only, no coder, otherwise I'd be happy to look into it > myself. I'm using unionfs to mount a copy of my ports tree into a jail on a fairly currently patched 5.3 system. It works beautifully except that it sometimes can't be unmounted as the machine shuts down, leading to an fsck. I've been trying to characterize it. Seems like I can mount it, start a jail, stop the jail, and unmount it just fine. However if I do anything in the jail's ports tree, then it won't unmount. Last experiment I did was to log into the jail and do a couple of 'syncs', then log out, shut the jail down and unmount it. That worked that one time. Not enough to file a bug yet, but the anecdote might be useful. g. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Current status of nullfs and/or unionfs?
On Thu, 5 May 2005, Eirik [ISO-8859-1] Øverby wrote: The solution, or at least parts of it, would be to have certain parts of the jail filesystems mounted in via nullfs (acceptable solution) or unionfs (ideal solution). However, ever since FreeBSD 4.10 this has been a major problem, as both filesystems started exhibiting major stability and data integrity issues. I'm running 4.11 with ~90 mount/jails running on two of our servers ... haven't noticed any stability problems ... what are you seeing? Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Current status of nullfs and/or unionfs?
Am Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2005 14:06 schrieb Eirik Øverby: > Hi all, > > I'm struggling with some hosting environments where I am managing a > large number of jails (>100) spread over about a dozen servers. I am > starting to see disk space as a real problem, especially given that each > physical box needs to be autonomous - i.e. I can't rely on any external > storage, and I am limited to 1U and 2U servers. > > The solution, or at least parts of it, would be to have certain parts of > the jail filesystems mounted in via nullfs (acceptable solution) or > unionfs (ideal solution). However, ever since FreeBSD 4.10 this has been > a major problem, as both filesystems started exhibiting major stability > and data integrity issues. > > Before I start playing with this again, I'd like to know if any work has > been done on either of these in 5.x. Specifically, I'm currently running > 5.3-p6 or newer on all the systems, and as of yesterday I've been using > 5.4-prerelease (cvsup) on a couple of test systems. > > What can I expect to see when trying nullfs and/or unionfs today? Has > anything changed? Do I have even a remote chance of making it work - and > if it doesn't work, what are my chances of anyone having time or energy > to look into it? I'm an admin only, no coder, otherwise I'd be happy to > look into it myself. Nullfs is as far as I can tell stable on 5.4 but the performance problem together with jails is not solved in 5.4, only in 6. And like Jeff said, it's not sure that it gets MFCd since lot of VFS changes are requred. -Harry > > Thanks, > /Eirik > > > ___ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" pgpvUs7DoDcQ9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Current status of nullfs and/or unionfs?
Eirik Ø verby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Before I start playing with this again, I'd like to know if any work has been done on either of these in 5.x. Specifically, I'm currently running 5.3-p6 or newer on all the systems, and as of yesterday I've been using 5.4-prerelease (cvsup) on a couple of test systems. Hi. I am running on 5.3-STABLE since december 2004. We run 14 jails and use nullfs for some shared parts. Everything is just fine. I tryed unionfs, it worked stable but i didn't do what i wanted it to do or probably i didn't get its usage right :) -- Regards, Artem Kuchin IT Legion Ltd. Moscow, Russia www.itlegion.ru [EMAIL PROTECTED] +7 095 232-0338 ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Current status of nullfs and/or unionfs?
On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 14:06 +0200, Eirik =?ISO-8859-1?B?2A==?=verby wrote: > [...] The solution, or at least parts of it, would be to have certain parts > of the > jail filesystems mounted in via nullfs (acceptable solution) or unionfs > (ideal solution). However, ever since FreeBSD 4.10 this has been a major > problem, as both filesystems started exhibiting major stability and data > integrity issues. > [...] > What can I expect to see when trying nullfs and/or unionfs today? Has > anything changed? Don't know if anything has changed, but I'm using nullfs to mount the ports directory of the host into jails. No ill effects. Works great, both under 4.10 and 5.3. (Back when I toyed with unionfs, I found that to be a bit unstable. But nullfs appears pretty solid) Regards, Frank signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
