Status of unionfs in -STABLE

Hi there, Recently I've began to consider making some use of unionfs in (semi-)production environment. Can someone aware of its current status in -STABLE comment a bit on this subject? Probably any information would be appreciated. Thanks so far, ./danfe __

Re: Status of unionfs in -STABLE

On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 02:54:59PM +0600, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > Hi there, > > Recently I've began to consider making some use of unionfs in > (semi-)production environment. Can someone aware of its current status > in -STABLE comment a bit on this subject? > > Probably any information would

Re: Status of unionfs in -STABLE

On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 03:24:21AM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 02:54:59PM +0600, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > Hi there, > > > > Recently I've began to consider making some use of unionfs in > > (semi-)production environment. Can someone aware of its current status > > in

Re: geom_mirror implementation

David Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, Nov 09, 2003, Lukas Ertl wrote: > > Hi hackers@, > > > > I've played around with GEOM a bit and beefed up geom_mirror, which is > > already in the tree but not built yet. > > > > You can find the patch at

Re: Update: Debox sendfile modifications

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > Igor Sysoev wrote this message on Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:31 +0300: > > I think it can done in the following way - a socket should have flag > > that says that sendfile() had started the reading a page. > > layer violation... I do not think that it's

Re: Status of unionfs in -STABLE

Alexey Dokuchaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Recently I've began to consider making some use of unionfs in > (semi-)production environment. Can someone aware of its current status > in -STABLE comment a bit on this subject? > > Probably any information would be appreciated. Last time I tri

Re: Update: Debox sendfile modifications

Igor Sysoev wrote this message on Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 15:16 +0300: > On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > > > Igor Sysoev wrote this message on Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:31 +0300: > > > I think it can done in the following way - a socket should have flag > > > that says that sendfile() had

Re: Status of unionfs in -STABLE

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > Hi there, > > Recently I've began to consider making some use of unionfs in > (semi-)production environment. Can someone aware of its current status > in -STABLE comment a bit on this subject? I use it *quite* extensively on all my production serve

Re: geom_mirror implementation

On Sun, Nov 09, 2003, Christian Laursen wrote: > David Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Sun, Nov 09, 2003, Lukas Ertl wrote: > > > Hi hackers@, > > > > > > I've played around with GEOM a bit and beefed up geom_mirror, which is > > > already in the tree but not built yet. > > > > > >

Re: geom_mirror implementation

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003, David Schultz wrote: > Yeah, RAID support in FreeBSD is in a rather sorry state right > now. ccd(4) doesn't work with ATAng on my machine without causing > panics and data corruption, raidframe is broken in -CURRENT, and > vinum tends to lag behind changes and break. But that

Re: geom_mirror implementation

On Sun, Nov 09, 2003, Lukas Ertl wrote: > > If there's a good reason ccd(4) is harder to fix than geom_mirror, then > > you might want to talk to phk about rewriting geom_ccd based on > > geom_mirror. I believe scottl and phk have plans to fix raidframe, > > though, which would address a lot of th

Re: geom_mirror implementation

It seems Lukas Ertl wrote: > > If there's a good reason ccd(4) is harder to fix than geom_mirror, then > > you might want to talk to phk about rewriting geom_ccd based on > > geom_mirror. I believe scottl and phk have plans to fix raidframe, > > though, which would address a lot of the present lim