Re: Unionmount status?

From: Michal Suchanek
Date: Thu Apr 14 2011 - 10:55:09 EST

On 14 April 2011 15:21, Ric Wheeler <ricwheeler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 04/14/2011 05:40 AM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Michal Suchanek<hramrach@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Âwrote:
>>> 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?


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at