linux-unionfs.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
To: Vito Caputo <vito.caputo@coreos.com>
Cc: "linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Stable inode numbers
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 12:02:13 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJfpegvsP62Bk3_5+QzDP1n4d_Jze_eXff1bwXUof1+abk5Ecg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKp8XJ7p38vuP_AY7Ky27ui7w=4G5TiwGTB6ZDpfr96dX_hVeQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:25 PM, Vito Caputo <vito.caputo@coreos.com> wrote:
> I think this strategy is an improvement, but I'm a bit apprehensive
> about how specific it is to this particular style of untar-like
> directory metadata preservation failure in only providing stability to
> directory inode numbers.
>
> Additionally it introduces a userspace-visible mount option, for
> something which /feels/ like a stop-gap kludge to make some things
> work better in the short-term.  Maybe it's acceptable, since a more
> general solution could be implemented later which ignores the added
> mount option without conflict.

Not sure that it's a kludge.  AFAIR union-mounts copy up directory on
lookup for simplicity of implementation.  Overlayfs doesn't do that
and it turns out to be not a big problem.  But I don't have any input
into the performance impact of doing this way or that.   If it turns
out to be unacceptable then we can think about some other solution
(possibly something out-of-band, like aufs does).

> As overlayfs usage increases in the "enterprise" via containers I
> suspect we'll be seeing substantial support load from unsuspecting
> users tripping over quirks like this and at some point there's a
> threshold where user confidence is lost.

Too true.

>  That is the lens I view
> overlayfs problems like these through, hence I'd prefer a more general
> solution with stable inode numbers making overlayfs behavior more
> consistent with the filesystems backing it.

Perhaps this needs to be the default then, turning it off to get the
more space efficient but less conformant version.  That risks being a
regression for some, but hey, overlayfs is still somewhat
experimental.

> It's difficult for me to define what is "good enough" for overlayfs
> correctness, and this situation seems like it might be one of those
> epitomizing the saying "perfect is the enemy of good".

If it breaks real apps, then it's not good.  We need to fix it one way
or the other.

Thanks,
Miklos

  parent reply	other threads:[~2016-07-26 10:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-07-21 23:33 Stable inode numbers Vito Caputo
2016-07-22 12:15 ` Miklos Szeredi
2016-07-22 20:55   ` Vito Caputo
2016-07-25 11:34     ` Miklos Szeredi
2016-07-25 21:25       ` Vito Caputo
2016-07-26  1:51         ` J. R. Okajima
2016-07-26 10:02         ` Miklos Szeredi [this message]
2016-07-26 11:09           ` Miklos Szeredi
2016-08-16  0:03             ` Vito Caputo

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAJfpegvsP62Bk3_5+QzDP1n4d_Jze_eXff1bwXUof1+abk5Ecg@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=miklos@szeredi.hu \
    --cc=linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=vito.caputo@coreos.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).