cvs commit: src/sys/fs/nullfs null.h null_subr.c null_vnops.c

[Tim J. Robbins]

On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 08:28:37PM -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> 
> > On (2003/06/18 13:53), Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> >
> > > With that said,  I will also add, that I will take an incredibly
> > > dim view of anybody who tries to add more gunk in this area, and
> > > that I am perfectly willing to derail unionfs and nullfs (or pretty
> > > much anything else on the list above) if that is what it takes to
> > > clean up the buffer cache.
> >
> > Makes sense.  After all, these filesystems are only just now recovering
> > from "we can fix these later" breakage introduced years ago.  What's a
> > few more years without 'em? :-)
> 
> 'K, this kinda hurts ... there are a growing # of us that are actually
> using unionfs and nullfs on production systems ... not small servers, but
> several thousand processes with over 100 union mounts ... other then the
> vnode leak stuff that David has been investigating, I've yet to see
> anything that I would considering warranting the 'DO NOT USE / CAVEAT
> EMPTOR' that is in the man pages ... :(

At least one of the sections is well-deserved: umapfs is horribly broken on
-current, and only works by accident on previous releases. I'm actually
considering putting an even stronger warning on that one. The others (null and
union) aren't nearly as bad, and have been fixed significantly since the
notice was put on the manpages.


Tim