Re: [ANNOUNCE] mini_fo-0.6.0 overlay file system

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On May 13, 2005, at 04:01:37, Jörn Engel wrote:
Doesn't even have to be interruptable.

Well, I wrote in my first mail:

On Thu, 12 May 2005 23:18:36 -0400, Kyle Moffett wrote:
1) This system should be a first-class VFS element, IE: -o union should
work on all filesystems, regardless of feature support.

I'd like to have -o union work not just on ext2/3. It could potentially be very _slow_ on other filesystems, until they get nonresident file support, but it would definitely need to be an interruptible page copy in that case.

Your trick, if I understand it correctly, is to copy data up on a block
level, not on a file level.

Precisely.

That way, if I later unmounted the unioned ext3 fs and remounted it
elsewhere without the underlying storage, I would be able to access the
parts of the directory structure and files that are resident, and the
rest would fail with a new error code ENONRESIDENT or similar.

ENONRESIDENT bugs me somehow.  I guess EIO would be quite sufficient.

Hmm. Ideally a program like tar would be able to determine which pages of a file are resident in memory and only store those. How does this currently
work for sparse files?

Maybe you also want a new incompatible fs flag, just to make sure old
kernels without proper understanding don't mess up the fs.

Definitely. You'd only need to set this if there were any nonresident files, however, and those would probably only be created if you union mounted with
"-o nonres" or similar.

If they deleted /dev/hdb1, but still wanted whatever changes they had
made on /dev/hdb2, they could always get at them by remounting / dev/hdb2 somewhere _without_ "-o union", and use a modified tar to package up the
resident portions of files the same way it does for sparse files.
Naturally there would need to be a way to mark a sparse file's empty
spaces as nonresident if so desired when untarring.

That's the old well-known (to some people) union-mount behaviour.

I'm just describing the whole idea in totality, so that everybody can get an
idea of what's going on.

Really, your idea of a block (page, whatever) level granularity for
copying data is nice.

I liked the idea of the existing linux sparse file support, so I based it off
that.

It solves the biggest concern I had left for union mount.  Actually
implementing it, though, depends on quite a bit of infrastructure that just
doesn't exist yet.  Still, a very interesting idea.

For ext2/ext3, the sparse-file-support _does_ exist, so the only major parts
that need to be added are:
o An extra ext2/ext3 flag that indicates nonresidence (For both sparse
      files, normal files, and directories).
    o VFS-level support for the union operation with hooks to let each
      filesystem do something special.





Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCM/CS/IT/U d- s++: a18 C++++>$ UB/L/X/*++++(+)>$ P+++(++++)>$
L++++(+++) E W++(+) N+++(++) o? K? w--- O? M++ V? PS+() PE+(-) Y+
PGP+++ t+(+++) 5 X R? tv-(--) b++++(++) DI+ D+ G e->++++$ h!*()>++$ r !y?(-)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux