lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jul]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/7] overlay filesystem: request for inclusion
    Date
    On Friday 08 July 2011, 14:57:09 Miklos Szeredi wrote:
    > "Hans-Peter Jansen" <hpj@urpla.net> writes:
    > > All kodos to you, Miklos. While I'm still missing a major feature
    > > from overlayfs that is a NFS as upper layer, it provides a fairly
    > > good start. A commitment from you, that such an extension is
    > > considered for inclusion - given, that it appears one day - is
    > > appreciated. Also, since xattr support is available for NFS,
    >
    > AFAIK development of generic xattr support on NFS stopped some time
    > ago.
    >
    > > it would be nice to outline, what is missing for such an
    > > implementation from overlayfs's POV.
    >
    > Allow using namspace polluting xattr replacements, such as aufs is
    > doing.
    >
    > But why? Why is it better to do the overlaying on the client instead
    > of the server?

    Exporting layered filesystems via NFS suffered from many problems
    traditionally, because that permuted NFS export issues of the server FS
    in use (say xfs) with FS layering issues. Since I'm doing diskless
    computing for more then two decades now, I always persued for lowering
    complexity, and/or localize it. Layering on the client is done with the
    latter in mind. While the basic concept of layered FS is sound,
    especially, things like mmapping and splicing cause hard to track down
    and problems, that are even harder to solve properly.

    Do you have experiences with NFS exported overlay FSs already? If that
    proves stable, does scale, and a client is able to survive a server
    reboot, layering on the server is a sexy approach of course (I hate to
    being forced to maintain my own kernel flavors for diskless clients,
    while I love to track the Linux kernel progress in general..).

    Does a openSUSE build service kernel project exist with overlayfs
    included? If I read the patch correctly, it's not possible to just bake
    overlayfs as a standalone KMP ATM.

    Let's-get-it-in-for-3.1-please'ly yours,
    Pete


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-07-10 13:19    [W:0.021 / U:59.788 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site