Re: [PATCH 00/13] overlay filesystem: request for inclusion (v15)

[Jan Engelhardt]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/