Performance with hundreds of nullfs mounts?

[Ivan Voras]

Russell Jackson wrote:
> Ivan Voras wrote:
>> hi,
>> I seem to remember hearing an anecdote somewhere that using hundreds
>> (or thousands?) nullfs mounts for jails results in unreasonably bad
>> file system access performance. Does somebody have this kind of setup
>> / is it true?
> 
> I was doing this with jails --before we moved to VMware ESX (for better or worse)-- and
> didn't see any noticeable performance degradation at the time (6.x series).

Thanks, everyone. I've tracked it down and I heard it from a collegue,
only he was talking about unionfs not nullfs.

> For those interested, the biggest plus for going to the ESX model is that it decoupled low
> utilization Windows boxes from over-spec'ed hardware and made it available for FreeBSD to
> use ;-). The downsides are that it's proprietary, it's expensive, it's inefficient (e.g.
> duplicated files and kernel instances everywhere), and you need freak'in Windows boxes to
> manage it.

Yes, ESX is nice. I've also tried XenServer (the "official" Xen) and
it's been terrible - both slow and clunky. Any other experiences?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20090312/a8fea995/signature.pgp