Re: Unionmount status?

[Ric Wheeler <ricwheeler@gmail.com>]

On 04/14/2011 10:54 AM, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> On 14 April 2011 15:21, Ric Wheeler<ricwheeler@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On 04/14/2011 05:40 AM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Michal Suchanek<hramrach@centrum.cz>
>>>   wrote:
>>>> I guess overlayfs includes the better part of unionmount and achieves
>>>> similar level of functionality in much smaller code size and is
>>>> actively developed.
>>>>
>>>> This might make it the best candidate for inclusion so far.
>>>>
>>>> It does not (yet?) support NFS which is one of the options commonly
>>>> used with union solutions, though.
>>> NFS is supported as a lower (read-only) layer, but not as an upper
>>> (read-write) layer.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Miklos
>> I am not that concerned with the state of Val's repo, her intention was to
>> hand off the project cleanly to others and have them drive the code (that
>> hand off was the posting of the patch set). Several people (Ian, David
>> Howells and Al Viro) had been involved with union mounts recently, so we do
>> have reasonable candidates for a hand off.
>>
>> One of the concerns with unionfs is the duplication of data. Union mounts
>> avoids this with that implementation. That might make unionfs more of a
>> burden for very large file systems, but probably not a concern for many use
>> cases.
> Just to make things clear, what is a very large filesystem?
>
> A heavily compressed DVD image?
>
> Tens or hundreds  of gigabytes? Terabytes?
>
> Hundreds, thousands or hundreds of thousands of inodes?
>
> Or is testing required to determine at what size the performance
> becomes unacceptable?
>
> Thanks
>
> Michal

Very large in the number of inodes more so than fs size...

Ric