[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: New filesystem for Linux kernel

    Miklos Szeredi:
    > It's always easier to review something with less features, even if
    > that feature set is too little for real world use.

    Generally I agree with you.

    > The simplest version is with all branches read-only. That gets rid of
    > a _huge_ amount of complexity, yet it's still useful in some
    > situations. It also deals with a lot of the basic infrastucture
    > needed for stacking.

    If you really think it is a better way to get merged into mainline, then
    I'll try implement such version.

    > And that's when one starts thinking about whether unioning is really
    > the right solution. Instead this could be implemented with a special
    > filesystem format that only contains deltas to the data, metatata and
    > directory tree. It would be much more space efficient, could easily
    > handle renames, hard links etc, without all the hacks that
    > unionfs/aufs does.

    It sounds like an ODF (on disk format) version of unionfs (while it
    seems to be inactive).
    At implementing, I don't think it easier to maintain delta of filedata
    and metadata. Since aufs has a writable branch in it, it is better and
    easier to maintain data in a branch fs.
    If you think there should not be any writable branch in aufs, and all
    "write" goes to a new filesystem format, then it is equivalent to a
    writable branch, isn't it?
    If you say "just a part of write" goes to a new fs, then I don't think
    we can support several essential features, for instance mmap.

    J. R. Okajima

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-02-24 17:29    [W:0.020 / U:2.624 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site