[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/22][RFC] Unionfs: Stackable Namespace Unification Filesystem
    On Tue, 5 September 2006 07:46:44 +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
    > Jörn Engel wrote:
    > >
    > > Direct modification of branches is similar to direct modification of
    > > block devices underneith a mounted filesystem. While I agree that
    > > such a thing _should_ not oops the kernel, I'd bet that you can easily
    > > run a stresstest on a filesystem while randomly flipping bits in the
    > > block device and get just that.
    > Not really a fair comparison. The block level is conceptionally totally
    > different than the fs level, while a stackable fs is within the realms of
    > the fs level.

    Well, I didn't realize that unionfs required its backing filesystems
    to be mounted. That's more like having the block device open in a
    text editor while mounting ext3. In the presence of such a design, an
    oops clearly is not acceptable. And this sort of design is just what
    I was talking about when I said:

    > > There are bigger problems in unionfs to worry about.


    You can't tell where a program is going to spend its time. Bottlenecks
    occur in surprising places, so don't try to second guess and put in a
    speed hack until you've proven that's where the bottleneck is.
    -- Rob Pike
    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 09:05    [W:0.019 / U:10.124 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site