[lkml]   [2011]   [Jul]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/7] overlay filesystem: request for inclusion
Dear Andrew, dear kernel developers,

I'm sorry for chiming in that late, but I had a motorbike accident that
resulted in a 3 week stay in a hospital, and I still depend on a
wheelchair for the next few weeks..

On Thursday 09 June 2011, 00:32:08 Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 14:46:13 +0200
> Miklos Szeredi <> wrote:
> > I'd like to ask for overlayfs to be merged into 3.1.

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, it would be nice to outline,
what is missing for such an implementation from overlayfs's POV.

> Dumb questions:
> I've never really understood the need for fs overlaying. Who wants
> it? What are the use-cases?

I do use it for diskless NFS installations in production environments.
Please note, that this isn't the usual thin client approach, that runs
on specialized expensive, but dump hardware, and scales bad on the
server side (you find this setup typically in the medical center next

Let's call it fat diskless client approach. I'm up to 3 * 24" heads on
fairly capable hardware for some clients. Besides the usual office
stuff, those systems mostly run a VMware based XP setup unfortunately,
diskless due to its very nature, but at acceptable speed, BTW.

Thanks to aufs, the setup of the linux diskless clients boils down to
install a distribution into a single folder, add a bit of boot mimic (I
use pxelinux and kiwi), and get it to mount NFS root with aufs in
initrd and an empty upper layer. Now you have a simple, but handy
persistent setup, that can be used from a hundred systems easily.

NFS on switched gigabit ethernet is fast enough (even without playing
SSD games on the server) to be nearly on eye level with single local
disks, but the advantage of a single installation instance for all
clients is paying off manifoldly.

Let me put it this way: administration effort for ONE XP instance (even
for the emulation driven one) is greater than for ALL linux clients
combined (although the number of applications used under XP is limited
to the absolute minimum necessary to get the work done).

Specializing some systems is pretty easy in this setup, backup is a
piece of cake, and moving systems around is a child's play.

And this is a fairly trivial way of using stacked file systems. There
are many creative use cases, that are unexploited due to its been
missing in the standard kernel. People will start using this feature,
when it is available without additional effort. Want to see, what files
in what ways an arbitrary application changes? Sure, you can trace it
down to its bones, or run it on top of a layered filesystem, and
diff/cmp/whatever the files between the upper and lower FS.

My favorite use case are build farms, where several basic setups for all
kind of usual distribution versions are maintained as lower layers of
stackable file systems. The builder checks for typical packages and
selects the matching layer, e.g. "kernel module", where the layer has
all kernel-devel packages installed. With similar layers
for "x11", "kde" and "gnome", I expect a typical build farm to speed up
by factor 10-20.

When the first wheels where invented, their use cases where pretty
limited, but today... Okay, stacked, unioned, layered, or overlayed
filesystems might not as universally useful as wheels in the end, but I
bet, that your linux based smartphone will use it by the end of next
year, if it gets merged in 3.1.


 \ /
  Last update: 2011-07-05 21:57    [W:0.178 / U:39.360 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site