On 05-05-05 16:59, "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 5 May 2005, Eirik [ISO-8859-1] Øverby wrote: > >> The solution, or at least parts of it, would be to have certain parts of >> the jail filesystems mounted in via nullfs (acceptable solution) or >> unionfs (ideal solution). However, ever since FreeBSD 4.10 this has been >> a major problem, as both filesystems started exhibiting major stability >> and data integrity issues. > > I'm running 4.11 with ~90 mount/jails running on two of our servers ... > haven't noticed any stability problems ... what are you seeing? I was seeing panics and deadlocks (hangs), seemingly unrelated to the level of disk activity, and sometimes I even had the suspicion that just having such a mountpoint, even though the jail wasn't started, could be enough to bring the system down. The problems appeared around 4.9/4.10. Even though I mounted these read-only, I still saw data going bad in directories that was null-mounted. This scared me away for a very long time ;) I'm just now picking up on the unionfs use, seems to do what I want, but I have no idea if it's stable or not. I suppose we'll be seeing that soon. /Eirik > ---- > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
