> Nullfs works better than unionfs. Unionfs worked well in 4.X.
> > What about the `union' option to regular mounts? Is that safe to use?
[...]
> Last I checked, it [mount -ounion -mi] was very broken, but I'm not sure.
BTW, how is unionfs different from nullfs with the union option?
mou
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jeremie Le Hen writes:
> A little time ago, phk@ asked for people to submit regression tests for
> virtual filesystem like this [1]. AFAIK, nobody submitted even one test
> so far. This could be a good starting point to have unionfs work
> correctly again. Howeve
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:53:20PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> > A few years ago, there was a project making a filesystem, where a file's
> > name will simply be its inode number. It was intended to save on the
> > name-to-inode lookups of a regular filesystem, for applications like
> > Squid
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Lou Kamenov writes:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 09:19:10 -0500, Michael W. Lucas
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:38:43PM +0100, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
> > But the mere existence of even a basic regression test would be a
> > start and would encou
A few years ago, there was a project making a filesystem, where a file's name
will simply be its inode number. It was intended to save on the name-to-inode
lookups of a regular filesystem, for applications like Squid, which keep file
names in some sort of a database already.
Does anyone know, w
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
> A little time ago, phk@ asked for people to submit regression tests for
> virtual filesystem like this [1]. AFAIK, nobody submitted even one test
> so far. This could be a good starting point to have unionfs work
> correctly again. However, I think F
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erez Zadok wr
ites:
> Anyone can download our unionfs software and the testsuite within from
> here:
>
> http://www.filesystems.org/project-unionfs.html
>
> You may consider it the first ever response to phk's request. :-)
yEHA!
Thanky
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:53:20PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> A few years ago, there was a project making a filesystem, where a file's name
> will simply be its inode number. It was intended to save on the name-to-inode
> lookups of a regular filesystem, for applications like Squid, which ke
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 09:19:10 -0500, Michael W. Lucas
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:38:43PM +0100, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
> But the mere existence of even a basic regression test would be a
> start and would encourage people to not hose things further.
[..]
> Folks, don't le
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:38:43PM +0100, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
> A little time ago, phk@ asked for people to submit regression tests for
> virtual filesystem like this [1]. AFAIK, nobody submitted even one test
> so far. This could be a good starting point to have unionfs work
> correctly again.
> "Kris" == Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
--
DSS5-RIPE DSS-RIPN 2:550/[EMAIL PROTECTED] 2:550/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
At the risk of bringing up the "L" word on this forum :-), we have a fan-out
unionfs implementation for Linux that doesn't explode very easily. See
http://www.filesystems.org/project-unionfs.html
Cheers,
Erez.
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing lis
Hello!
The respected manual contain dire warnings, but the Google search suggests,
the situation is not *that* gloomy.
For example, according to http://kerneltrap.org/node/652 , nullfs was used on
Bento-cluster two years ago in 2003.
Is anybody working on this file-systems? Any plans, rumours?
> That obviously depend on your use of jails and nullfs. It works just
> fine for me.
For me too. I mount /bin /sbin /lib /usr/bin /usr/sbin /usr/lib
/usr/libexec /usr/libdata /usr/share in all my jails using nullfs, thus
I avoid wasting storage space and an upgrade of the host also
automaticall
On 2005.03.10 14:41:30 +0300, Denis Shaposhnikov wrote:
> > "Kris" == Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
That obviously depend on y
> "Kris" == Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
--
DSS5-RIPE DSS-RIPN 2:550/[EMAIL PROTECTED] 2:550/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
Hi David,
> Nullfs works better than unionfs. Unionfs worked well in 4.X.
> Despite numerous minor bugs such as being unable to cope with
> FIFOs, several people have reported using it quite successfully on
> production systems. However, unionfs no longer works quite as
> well in 5.X or -CURRENT
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> Hello!
>
> The respected manual contain dire warnings, but the Google search suggests,
> the situation is not *that* gloomy.
>
> For example, according to http://kerneltrap.org/node/652 , nullfs was used on
> Bento-cluster two years ago in 2003.
>
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 06:38:06PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> Hello!
>
> The respected manual contain dire warnings, but the Google search suggests,
> the situation is not *that* gloomy.
>
> For example, according to http://kerneltrap.org/node/652 , nullfs was used on
> Bento-cluster two y
19 matches
Mail list logo
