Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:45:53 -0500 From: "Charles P. Wright" <cwright@cs.sunysb.edu> To: Lou Kamenov <loukamenov@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: the current status of nullfs, unionfs Message-ID: <1110476753.20632.11.camel@polarbear.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> In-Reply-To: <76f962c6050310092461fc850@mail.gmail.com> References: <200503091838.06322.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> <20050310023518.GA11712@VARK.MIT.EDU> <20050310113843.GJ34822@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <20050310141910.GA72868@bewilderbeast.blackhelicopters.org> <76f962c6050310092461fc850@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 12:24 -0500, Lou Kamenov wrote: > Erez's unionfs has the same problem, the case there is that you wont be able to > unmount it at all. (At least last time I tried with 1.0.3) The code has improved quite a bit since then. We've ironed out most of of the big bugs (there are still other smaller ones to go, but we are making reasonable progress). A recent version has been included in Knoppix 3.8. > Problem or not it could be easily solved with simple heuristics. > Building a filespace > with unioning shouldnt really be that hard. That isn't quite true. In theory, all you have to do is repeat some operations over many branches. In practice, building a Unioning file system is not an easy task. There are very many corner cases to deal with, and what were previously atomic VFS ops can require many operations. Charles
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1110476753.20632.11.camel>