[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D8C86B2.2060902@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 08:12:34 -0400
From: Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>
To: Szeredi Miklos <miklos@...redi.hu>
CC: Valerie Aurora <valerie.aurora@...il.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: Union mounts comparison with overlay file system prototype?
On 03/25/2011 07:38 AM, Szeredi Miklos wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Ric Wheeler<rwheeler@...hat.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
Thanks for the high level overview!
Ric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists