[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <877grozaih.fsf@tucsk.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 22:48:06 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: "J. R. Okajima" <hooanon05@...oo.co.jp>
Cc: viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
hch@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, apw@...onical.com,
nbd@...nwrt.org, neilb@...e.de, jordipujolp@...il.com,
ezk@....cs.sunysb.edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
sedat.dilek@...glemail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] overlay filesystem: request for inclusion (v15)
"J. R. Okajima" <hooanon05@...oo.co.jp> writes:
> Miklos, how do you think about this?
> <http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123938533724484&w=2>
> Do you think UnionMount is totally gone?
Unionmount provides almost the same functionality as overlayfs. The big
difference between the two is that unionmounts resides 100% in the VFS
while 95% of overlayfs is plain filesystem code. I think that's the
biggest advantage: filesystem code is easier to maintain, has less
impact on core complexity, etc.
Aufs provides much better filesystem semantics than either unionmounts
or overlayfs. But that does come at a price:
aufs: 98 files changed, 29893 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
overlayfs: 22 files changed, 2981 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
Thanks,
Miklos
--
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