[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.01.1209231500400.15692@nerf07.vanv.qr>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 15:02:30 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...i.de>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
cc: "J. R. Okajima" <hooanon05@...oo.co.jp>, 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)
On Thursday 2012-09-20 22:48, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>
>> 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.
The big advantage is actually that the unioned view is in a separate
namespace (vfsmount).
>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(-)
In two years time when sufficient user requests have come in,
overlayfs is likely to have wrong as much.
--
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