the current status of nullfs, unionfs
Jeremie Le Hen
jeremie at le-hen.org
Thu Mar 10 03:38:48 PST 2005
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. There are several reasons for this:
>
> 1. Nobody seems to have both the time and interest to maintain it.
>
> 2. Developers can't be expected to prevent regressions in
> something that's unsupported.
>
> 3. There are a couple of people who always respond to questions
> about unionfs with comments along the lines of:
> ``It's broken, so we won't help you. Go away and don't tell
> us if you find any bugs.''
>
> There's some pretty low-hanging fruit in terms of nits to fix.
> See the PR database if you're interested in helping, and don't let
> anyone scare you away. ;-)
>
> > What about the `union' option to regular mounts? Is that safe to use?
>
> Last I checked, it was very broken, but I'm not sure.
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 FreeBSD VFS gurus should first spread
some ideas and clues about tests to do. I guess indeed there are very
tricky ones that most common mortals wouldn't even suspect.
Regards,
[1] http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2005-January/045743.html
--
Jeremie Le Hen
< jeremie at le-hen dot org >< ttz at chchile dot org >
More information about the freebsd-hackers
mailing list