[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC 12/26] ext2 white-out support
On Wed, Aug 01, Erez Zadok wrote:

> There are three other reasons why Unionfs and our users like to have
> multiple writable branches:


> And yes, it does make our implementation more complex.

And error-prone and unflexible wrt to changes. When XIP was introduced,
unionfs crashed all over this changes. I don't know if this has changed
yet. Not speaking of other issues like calling back into VFS (stack usage),
locking problems and so on.

> 3. Some people use Unionfs in the scenario described in point #2 above, as a
> poor man's space- and load- distribution system. Some of our users like
> the idea of controlling how much storage space they give each branch, and
> how much it might grow, and even how much CPU or I/O load might be placed
> on each of the lower filesystems which serve a given branch. That way
> they worry less about the top-layer's space filling up more quickly than
> expected. Now Unionfs was never designed to be a load-balancing f/s (we
> have RAIF for that, see <>),
> but users seems to always find creative ways to [ab]use one's software in
> ways one never thought of. :-)

And this has nothing to do with unioning ...

> BTW, does Union Mounts copyup on meta-data changes (e.g., chmod, chgrp,
> etc.)?

No. But it was proposed during on of the last postings.
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: 2007-08-02 14:09    [W:0.132 / U:54.676 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site