lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: Union mounts comparison with overlay file system prototype?
From
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@redhat.com> wrote:
> Can one or both of you summarize what we union mounts and overlay do better
> or worse? Do we need both or just one?

The semantics are very similar, the differences are in the implementation.

Union mounts:

- whiteout/opaque/fallthrough support in filesystems
- whiteout operation is atomic
- no dentry and inode duplication
- copy up on lookup and readdir
- does not support union of two read-only trees
- merged directory stored in upper tree

Overlayfs

- whiteout/opaque as xattrs
- whiteout operation is not atomic
- dentry and inode duplication(*)
- only copy up on modification
- supports union of two read-only trees
- merged directory not cached(**)

(*) it's possible to eliminate inode duplication of non-directories
with some VFS modifications
(**) caching should be possible to do


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-03-25 12:41    [W:0.105 / U:0.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site