On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > Shooting down ppl that are willing to test and report bugs is equally as
> > irresponsible though, and I've been seeing alot of that ...
>
> Okay, so you're changing the topic (we were talking about users, not
> testers).
No, I'm talking about end-us
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 12:46:18AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, it's a good thing that some developers are finally working on
> > > fixing some of the problems, but the fact remains that
On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 12:46:18AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
> > Yes, it's a good thing that some developers are finally working on
> > fixing some of the problems, but the fact remains that nullfs/unionfs
> > *are not known to work in all situa
On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 12:48:49AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 10:19:46PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >
> > > > If I use unionfs as the ``base'' for the jail then every directory seems
> > > > to be automagical
--On Thursday, October 09, 2003 22:55:26 -0300 "Marc G. Fournier"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You know, its this attitude that would have kept Christopher Columbus in
Europe ... all the "big scary warnings" said that the world was flat back
then, no?
No, not at all. Because by the time of Columbu
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 10:19:46PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> > > If I use unionfs as the ``base'' for the jail then every directory seems
> > > to be automagically owned by the person that mounted it (i.e. root).
> > > This causes me problems f
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Yes, it's a good thing that some developers are finally working on
> fixing some of the problems, but the fact remains that nullfs/unionfs
> *are not known to work in all situations* (indeed, I was able to trigger
> unionfs bugs within a few minutes of t
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 10:19:46PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > If I use unionfs as the ``base'' for the jail then every directory seems
> > to be automagically owned by the person that mounted it (i.e. root).
> > This causes me problems for stuff like mailspool, etc. I think this is
> > th
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 10:55:26PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 05:00:02PM -0400, Kenny Freeman wrote:
> >
> > > > I've been reading about unionfs and nullfs (well, more skim reading
> > > > really; I'm not FS guru,
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 05:00:02PM -0400, Kenny Freeman wrote:
>
> > > I've been reading about unionfs and nullfs (well, more skim reading
> > > really; I'm not FS guru, which is why I'm asking here) and one of these
> > > sounds like it could be the
> 5.1-RELEASE, latest patches. I think this might be the problem. I'm
> having vinum issues too.
'K, haven't started to play with 5.1 yet, since its still label'd as "not
production quality" ... or at least it was when I asked before installing
my last server a month or so ago ...
> > permissi
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 05:00:02PM -0400, Kenny Freeman wrote:
> > I've been reading about unionfs and nullfs (well, more skim reading
> > really; I'm not FS guru, which is why I'm asking here) and one of these
> > sounds like it could be the idea solution. At first glance I'd say that
> > unio
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 09:31:05PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Lewis Thompson wrote:
> > Just causing system reboots. Randomly.
> >
> > Also, for some reason it doesn't seem to propogate permissions, which
> > is annoying for using them as the bases for jails.
>
> syst
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Lewis Thompson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 09:17:12PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Lewis Thompson wrote:
> >
> > > > Anyway, nullfs is great for "remounting"
> > > > parts of the file system.
> > >
> > > Yeah, right now I'm using NFS mounts, w
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 09:17:12PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Lewis Thompson wrote:
>
> > > Anyway, nullfs is great for "remounting"
> > > parts of the file system.
> >
> > Yeah, right now I'm using NFS mounts, which is a bit ugly, to say the
> > least. Since I had trou
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Lewis Thompson wrote:
> > Anyway, nullfs is great for "remounting"
> > parts of the file system.
>
> Yeah, right now I'm using NFS mounts, which is a bit ugly, to say the
> least. Since I had troubles with union I steered clear of nullfs, since
> the same ``slippery dog'' wa
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 05:00:02PM -0400, Kenny Freeman wrote:
Content-Description: signed data
> I've got a 120GB drive in that system, so for me I don't really have a
> problem with space.
Yeah, same here, but the way I figure it is it's surely better to
conserve the disk space if at all possibl
err
none /secure/files/mail /secure/internal/smtp/postfix/server/var/spool/mail
nullfs rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev 0 0
same for the other entry - forgot the fs type...
-Kenny
On October 9, 2003 05:00 pm, Kenny Freeman wrote:
> I'm not sure about union fs, never had a real use for it yet I have
I'm not sure about union fs, never had a real use for it yet I have a
similair setup as you. I have about 4 jails running so far (~8 more to go).
I've written a fairly large bash scipt to build the jails + configure them
automagically too. I've got a 120GB drive in that system, so for me I d
Hi,
I currently have a bunch of jails running on my FreeBSD box. I've
done this by making installworld a number of times, each time with a
different DESTDIR (say /jail1, /jail2, /jail3). Clearly this is using a
significant amount of space on the machine.
I've been reading about unionfs and
20 matches
Mail list logo
