I've been running FreeBSD 4.x for eons now, mainly because of the fact that she's "known" in our environment ... UNIONFS isn't perfect, but all of the obvious/major bugs have been worked out of her, etc ... but, she's also a dead branch, so any outstanding bugs, nobody is interested in fixing them, let alone having reported ... I'm just in the process of putting together a new server, and based on some stuff I've heard recently concerning work that has been done on UNIONFS, I'm tempted to put 5.x onto this new server, to start bringing my servers into the 'current age' ... Is there anyone out there using 5-STABLE and UNIONFS that are happy with it, or is it still very problematic? Again, the key thing right now for me is UNIONFS, so I'm looking mainly for feedback from ppl that *are* using it, not just reading the end of the man page ... Thanks ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Tuesday 14 June 2005 12:05, Marc G. Fournier wrote:> Is there anyone out there using 5-STABLE and UNIONFS that are happy with > it, or is it still very problematic?This probably isn't the heavy-duty example you wanted, but... I run 5.4-STABLE on a laptop, and mount /usr/ports/distfiles read-only from another server via smbfs. Then, I use unionfs to mount /usr/ports/localdistfiles above /usr/ports/distfiles. This is hardly in the same league as running a database or mailserver through unionfs, but it certainly seems stable enough for my limited needs. -- Kirk Strauser -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 155 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20050614/917476fb/attachment.bin
> > I've been running FreeBSD 4.x for eons now, mainly because of the fact > that she's "known" in our environment ... UNIONFS isn't perfect, but all > of the obvious/major bugs have been worked out of her, etc ... but, she's > also a dead branch, so any outstanding bugs, nobody is interested in > fixing them, let alone having reported ... > > I'm just in the process of putting together a new server, and based on > some stuff I've heard recently concerning work that has been done on > UNIONFS, I'm tempted to put 5.x onto this new server, to start bringing my > servers into the 'current age' ... > > Is there anyone out there using 5-STABLE and UNIONFS that are happy with > it, or is it still very problematic? > > Again, the key thing right now for me is UNIONFS, so I'm looking mainly > for feedback from ppl that *are* using it, not just reading the end of the > man page ... > > Thanks ...im using it, even with 6.0. im using it for my diskless (about 90% of our freebsd), to mount /etc 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 and all is fine.