On Wed, Aug 01, Erez Zadok wrote:
> There are three other reasons why Unionfs and our users like to have
> multiple writable branches:
>
...
> And yes, it does make our implementation more complex.
And error-prone and unflexible wrt to changes. When XIP was introduced,
unionfs crashed all over this changes. I don't know if this has changed
yet. Not speaking of other issues like calling back into VFS (stack usage),
locking problems and so on.
> 3. Some people use Unionfs in the scenario described in point #2 above, as a
> poor man's space- and load- distribution system. Some of our users like
> the idea of controlling how much storage space they give each branch, and
> how much it might grow, and even how much CPU or I/O load might be placed
> on each of the lower filesystems which serve a given branch. That way
> they worry less about the top-layer's space filling up more quickly than
> expected. Now Unionfs was never designed to be a load-balancing f/s (we
> have RAIF for that, see <http://www.filesystems.org/project-raif.html>),
> but users seems to always find creative ways to [ab]use one's software in
> ways one never thought of. :-)
And this has nothing to do with unioning ...
> BTW, does Union Mounts copyup on meta-data changes (e.g., chmod, chgrp,
> etc.)?
No. But it was proposed during on of the last postings.
-
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]
