On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 23:08 -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 09:28 -0400, Shaya Potter wrote:
> > On Sun, 2006-09-03 at 11:05 +0000, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > > - Modifying a Unionfs branch directly, while the union is mounted, is
> > > > currently unsupported. Any such change may cause Unionfs to oops and it
> > > > can even result in data loss!
> > >
> > > I'm not sure if that is acceptable. Even root user should be unable to
> > > oops the kernel using 'normal' actions.
> >
> > As I said in the other case. imagine ext2/3 on a a san file system
> > where 2 systems try to make use of it. Will they not have issues?
>
> Yes, but you are deliberately ignoring that NAS systems like CIFS or NFS
> don't, and neither do clustered filesystems. Users of those systems
> don't expect them to have issues with that sort of scenario.
No. I just view them as a backing store type system. Yes, if you use
unionfs in an nfs context you better be sure about how the nfs backing
store is going to be used (i.e. read-only or only used by a single
user), just like if you put ext2/3 on a san block device, you better be
sure that either its only used read-only or only used by a single user.
Yes, unionfs enables you to use the backing store "incorrectly", but so
do ext2/3 or any other non clustered file system when used on a SAN.
-
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]
