unionfs status

[Vadim Goncharov]

Hi Robert Watson! 

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:53:25 +0000 (GMT); Robert Watson wrote about 'Re: unionfs status':

> You can imagine a number of schemes to replicate pointer changes around or 
> track the various outstanding references, but I think a more fundamental 
> question is whether this is in fact the right behavior at all.  The premise of 
> is that writes flow up, but not down, and "connections" to sockets are 
> read-write events, not read events, most typically.  If you're using unionfs 
> to take a template system and "broadcast it" to many jails, you probably don't 
> want all the jails talking to the same syslogd, you want them each talking to 
> their own.  When syslogd in a jail finds a disconnected socket, which is 
> effectively what a NULL v_socket pointer means, in /var/run/log, it should be 
> unlinking it and creating a new socket, not reusing the existing file on disk.

This code's use in jails is primarily intended for mysql (and the like
daemons), not syslogd (for which you said it right). Such daemons really
require broadcasting, yep - so unionfs should support it...

-- 
WBR, Vadim Goncharov. ICQ#166852181       mailto:vadim_nuclight at mail.ru
[Moderator of RU.ANTI-ECOLOGY][FreeBSD][http://antigreen.org][LJ:/nuclight]