[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/22][RFC] Unionfs: Stackable Namespace Unification Filesystem
    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
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-09-05 05:33    [W:0.025 / U:7.092 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site