Eirik Øverby writes:
[...]
What can I expect to see when trying nullfs and/or unionfs today? Has
anything changed? Do I have even a remote chance of making it work - and if
it doesn't work, what are my chances of anyone having time or energy to
look
into it? I'm an admin only, no
On 06-05-05 08:18, Danny Braniss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eirik Øverby writes:
[...]
What can I expect to see when trying nullfs and/or unionfs today? Has
anything changed? Do I have even a remote chance of making it work - and if
it doesn't work, what are my chances of anyone having time or
Interesting approach. Is this with 4.x or 5.x? How do you union-mount /etc
(mount command/fstab entry)?
been doing it since 4.x (i think x 9)
in initdiskless (5.x) we have:
if [ -e /conf/union ]; then
kldload unionfs
mount_md 4096 /conf/etc
chmod 755 /conf/etc
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,
On 06-05-05 09:25, Danny Braniss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interesting approach. Is this with 4.x or 5.x? How do you union-mount /etc
(mount command/fstab entry)?
been doing it since 4.x (i think x 9)
Any idea how unionfs will behave if stacked (more mounts on top of each
other)? I was
On 06-05-05 09:25, Danny Braniss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interesting approach. Is this with 4.x or 5.x? How do you union-mount /etc
(mount command/fstab entry)?
been doing it since 4.x (i think x 9)
Any idea how unionfs will behave if stacked (more mounts on top of each
On 06-05-05 13:14, Danny Braniss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 06-05-05 09:25, Danny Braniss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interesting approach. Is this with 4.x or 5.x? How do you union-mount /etc
(mount command/fstab entry)?
been doing it since 4.x (i think x 9)
Any idea how unionfs
Hi all,
I'm struggling with some hosting environments where I am managing a large
number of jails (100) spread over about a dozen servers. I am starting to
see disk space as a real problem, especially given that each physical box
needs to be autonomous - i.e. I can't rely on any external storage,
On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 14:06 +0200, Eirik =?ISO-8859-1?B?2A==?=verby
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
Eirik Ø verby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Before I start playing with this again, I'd like to know if any work
has been done on either of these in 5.x. Specifically, I'm currently
running
5.3-p6 or newer on all the systems, and as of yesterday I've been
using
5.4-prerelease (cvsup) on a couple of
Am Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2005 14:06 schrieb Eirik Øverby:
Hi all,
I'm struggling with some hosting environments where I am managing a
large number of jails (100) spread over about a dozen servers. I am
starting to see disk space as a real problem, especially given that each
physical box needs
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
Eirik Øverby writes:
[...]
What can I expect to see when trying nullfs and/or unionfs today? Has
anything changed? Do I have even a remote chance of making it work - and if
it doesn't work, what are my chances of anyone having time or energy to look
into it? I'm an admin only, no coder,
13 matches
Mail list logo
