From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" Subject: Re: storage considerations Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:36:38 -0600 Message-ID: <20090205153638.GD27410@us.ibm.com> References: <7B7881568CF40E4388B615CD06F87B980989E9@clara.maurer-it.com> <49887307.1080105@free.fr> <20090204160518.GC2039@us.ibm.com> <4989C7C0.6060906@free.fr> <498A1EE6.3000204@cs.columbia.edu> <7B7881568CF40E4388B615CD06F87B98098A12@clara.maurer-it.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7B7881568CF40E4388B615CD06F87B98098A12-cHQ43lMKbBKenyD9vqZGNUEOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Dietmar Maurer Cc: Linux Containers List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Quoting Dietmar Maurer (dietmar-YTcQvvOqK21BDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org): > > >>> Dietmar Maurer wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Hi Daniel, > > >>>> > > >>>> I think we should have several options for the root storage: > > >>>> > > >>>> 1.) simply use the host filesystem (like Openvz) > > >>>> > > >>>> - special quota support is needed (simfs?) > > >>>> > > >>>> - quota support depends on ext3 fs, so this only works for > > >>>> local attached storage (does not work on NFS) > > >>>> > > >>>> - LVM snapshots are slow, because the snapshot includes all > > >>>> container > > >>>> on that filesystem. > > >>>> > > >> I'm looking forward to the btrfs, tux3, and nilfs snapshotting > > >> capabilities. > > >> > > > Interesting, especially the nilfs. > > > The COW file systems is missing in the linux kernel. Do you think > the > > > btrfs has a chance to go to mainline ? > > > > We've been using NILFS (v1) for 2 years already with Zap, and it works > > quite well. We had to make slight (trivial) changes to be able to > > control it nicely for c/r purposes. > > NILFS, BTRFS, ... maybe provide solution for snapshots, but quota > support > is still missing (we need quotas on subdirectories)? Haven't thought it through 100%, but does it not suffice to be able to specify quotas per user-namespace? It won't help with NFS... > And a FS independent solution would be great, so that it works on top of > NFS too. > > So UnionFS looks good, but it does not provide real snapshots (using > base + incremental change looks clumsy for our purpose). I am also not > sure > if quota works on UnionFS? > > - Dietmar